General Discussion

radius777

(3,635 posts)

64. I don't think we'll ever see such a ruling

Mon Nov 23, 2020, 01:46 AM

Nov 2020

even by far-right judges because it would effectively render presidential elections meaningless if legislatures could arbitrarily step in and overtake the process anytime they wanted.

I don't think Scalia (in Bush v Gore) or Kavanaugh in recent rulings view it that way - only that should an election have severe problems which can be proven in court, that cast doubt upon the results in a way that it is unable to be certified, then the power to select the electors falls back to the legislature.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why I don't think the Supreme Court will take up the Pennsylvania case [View all] StarfishSaver Nov 2020 OP

I agree. hlthe2b Nov 2020 #1

There is simply NFW the Roberts court will pick this up. Maru Kitteh Nov 2020 #2

To which, I reply... regnaD kciN Nov 2020 #13

Gorsuch. Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #16

If vote certification is not granted the states electoral votes are then Dropped from the 270 Thekaspervote Nov 2020 #41

I wasn't answering that question, but OK. Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #46

I don't think we'll ever see such a ruling radius777 Nov 2020 #64

I don't think Scalia did - Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #66

All of them if they don't want to look like idiots treestar Nov 2020 #27

They won't rule at all, because the court will refuse to hear the case. Nt Fiendish Thingy Nov 2020 #34

Wasn't the SC decision in 2000 that the client, Bush, would be damaged if the recount continued? spike jones Nov 2020 #56

I lean that way, too. It's the ROBERTS Court. calimary Nov 2020 #59

precisely Maru Kitteh Nov 2020 #61

Thanks for the lucid explanation! Karadeniz Nov 2020 #3

Trump assumes that his appointees Turbineguy Nov 2020 #4

So what happens if he does start going after the Justices exboyfil Nov 2020 #7

Nothing will happen. Justices are appointed for life, so no matter what Trump does The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2020 #8

It doesn't matter if they "need" him or not... regnaD kciN Nov 2020 #10

Guiding principles aren't the issue here StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #15

Trump's "guiding principles" are as follows: ShazzieB Nov 2020 #35

Agree LiberalArkie Nov 2020 #29

Agree! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2020 #5

great point stopdiggin Nov 2020 #6

I wish they would say, in their refusal, Mr.Bill Nov 2020 #9

SCOTUS Owes Trump Thier Conservative Majority. KWR65 Nov 2020 #11

They don't owe him anything. Once they have their lifetime appointments The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2020 #18

You're Naive. KWR65 Nov 2020 #21

VO is not anything close to being naive StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #28

And you give Trump too much credit. TwilightZone Nov 2020 #40

Exactly. Mr.Bill Nov 2020 #50

Trump Appointed Judges have already ruled against him in cases JI7 Nov 2020 #65

I agree with VO. ShazzieB Nov 2020 #37

Exactly Polybius Nov 2020 #62

They do not owe him anything besides there is now a Bev54 Nov 2020 #24

Neil Katyal solicitor gen for President Obama says no, SCOTUS will not get involved Thekaspervote Nov 2020 #38

We will know tomorrow when PA is likely certified and Michigan and Arizona as well. Demsrule86 Nov 2020 #42

You're confusing strict constructionists with the megalomaniac EllieBC Nov 2020 #58

Thank you, StarfishSaver! Cha Nov 2020 #12

Agreed, Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #14

Unequal application of any law is not much defense. bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #17

If that were the case, Florida's entire system would be unconstitutional StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #20

Maybe the Right Wing Five do want look like the Trump Toadies they are. rickyhall Nov 2020 #19

Thank you, I agree. sheshe2 Nov 2020 #22

What does he want to happen? For all 7 million Rice4VP Nov 2020 #23

And these are the same people who fought tooth and nail for states NOT to be required to inform StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #25

Not only that, the case was dismissed with prejudice bucolic_frolic Nov 2020 #26

(1) They sued the wrong people. (2) Their remedy wasn't appropriate for their injury struggle4progress Nov 2020 #30

You pretty much boiled down a 37-page opinion into three sentenced StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #31

There are other pesky little details, such as lack of standing and the fact struggle4progress Nov 2020 #44

Bingo. There's no way in Hell such a dumb complaint The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2020 #39

Crazee Eddie sez: "Money talks, nobody walks!11" sprinkleeninow Nov 2020 #45

4) standing grantcart Nov 2020 #53

Who wouldn't want to take up a case about Zombie Chavez working with the CIA? Major Nikon Nov 2020 #32

They won't touch it because to do so would render SCOTUS impotent and irrelevant Fiendish Thingy Nov 2020 #33

Thx for posting!! Thekaspervote Nov 2020 #36

Why on earth would they? tavernier Nov 2020 #43

It's John Roberts court. JohnnyRingo Nov 2020 #47

His main leaning is as an institutionalist grantcart Nov 2020 #55

Agree. zentrum Nov 2020 #48

Agree 100% CaptainTruth Nov 2020 #49

I believe if they do it will be time for a national strike like this country has never seen before. OregonBlue Nov 2020 #51

I could be wrong ... Straw Man Nov 2020 #52

I don't think you're wrong StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #54

Thank you, StarfishSaver! Thanks also to all who added to the discussion. nt crickets Nov 2020 #57

I'm still not entirely sure what they're appealing Azathoth Nov 2020 #60

K&R Blue Owl Nov 2020 #63