Tucker Issues a Warning... About a Potential President AOC?

[goatprairie]

Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh decided massive electoral fraud is OK and nobody has the standing to ask for redress, so draw the conclusion about whether they are "crooked."

No they didn't. They ruled that Texas has no business telling other states how to run their elections.
As a firm believer in federalism, i'm sure you'd agree.

[goatprairie]

I guess the philosophical question would be.... does the term "compromised" rise to the level or term of "crooked".  One could make the argument.... since their (the USSC justices) job is to be objective while upholding the US Constitution....and ergo, the law.....

that, yes.   It does rise to that level and definition.  They did not in any way uphold the US Constitution in that ruling.   They upheld their own gutless values (or lack thereof).  Because every legal, eligible to vote, citizen of the US has "standing" when it comes to massive election fraud in a national election.... and therefore, every other state has "standing", as well.

That's how I see it.

So you believe in an all-powerful central government capable of interfering with the decisions of every state in what should be state matters?
Tell me, if your state does something you don't like (my idiot state does it all the time with our current Dem governor), do you favor other states stepping in and telling you how to run your state's business?
I don't think you'd like that at all.
If the people in a certain state don't like what their state pols are doing, it is up to them to try to fix the problem by voting the rascals out or having citizens of THAT STATE!!! try to fix the problem through the courts.
It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania, or any other state, runs their elections. Pennsylvania could select their electors with a coin flip, and it is none of Texas's business if they do.

[XenaLee]

@HoustonSam

I'm the guilty party who used the sweeping generalization, "The SCOTUS is crooked."  My bad.

You you make another really good point:

That applies to the whole Judge/Attorney approach to the law:  They've created laws and decisions with language that makes it virtually impossible any layperson to understand the law.  If a citizen cannot act as their own attorney, then the "consent of the governed" evaporates like an early morning fog.  I've seen "In Pro Per" cases get thrown out simply because a mouthpiece was not used in court, even in clear-cut suits.

Which equates to "no equal protection under the law".... since only if you are rich enough to hire a good attorney (vs. a ""free"" one) will you have a chance to win any court case.

[XenaLee]

So you believe in an all-powerful central government capable of interfering with the decisions of every state in what should be state matters?
Tell me, if your state does something you don't like (my idiot state does it all the time with our current Dem governor), do you favor other states stepping in and telling you how to run your state's business?
I don't think you'd like that at all.
If the people in a certain state don't like what their state pols are doing, it is up to them to try to fix the problem by voting the rascals out or having citizens of THAT STATE!!! try to fix the problem through the courts.
It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania, or any other state, runs their elections. Pennsylvania could select their electors with a coin flip, and it is none of Texas's business if they do.

Nice attempt at twisting my words there.   Rather trollish behavior, if you ask me.  But no, what I believe in is the US Constitution.  It is the safeguard of EVERY state... but only if every state upholds it.   In this last election, several (five) states did not uphold the Constitution, and yes... that negatively impacts all 50 states and yes... in that case, every other state has standing to demand adherence TO the US Constitution re: how they conduct their national elections.  You're damned straight.

[skeeter]

No they didn't. They ruled that Texas has no business telling other states how to run their elections.
As a firm believer in federalism, i'm sure you'd agree.

California violates federal law (laws formed by a consensus of representatives from all over the nation) by de facto legalization of illegal immigration. Whats worse, state politicians actually encourage them to vote. As a consequence millions do, guaranteeing the rats CA's 55 electoral votes every presidential election.

Is it your opinion the rest of the nation should just suck it up?

[skeeter]

Nice attempt at twisting my words there.   Rather trollish behavior, if you ask me.  But no, what I believe in is the US Constitution.  It is the safeguard of EVERY state... but only if every state upholds it.   In this last election, several (five) states did not uphold the Constitution, and yes... that negatively impacts all 50 states and yes... in that case, every other state has standing to demand adherence TO the US Constitution re: how they conduct their national elections.  You're damned straight.

The founders set our system up to protect those very states being taken advantage of by larger states. I find it very hard to believe they'd agree whats happening now should be tolerated as a manifestation of 'federalism'.

[XenaLee]

California violates federal law (laws formed by a consensus of representatives from all over the nation) by de facto legalization of illegal immigration. Whats worse, state politicians actually encourage them to vote. As a consequence millions do, guaranteeing the rats CA's 55 electoral votes every presidential election.

Is it your opinion the rest of the nation should just suck it up?

And.... many or most of those illegal (from foreign nations) immigrants migrate to other states, pulling resources from those other states, and yet California initially enabled them to come to the US and live, and vote, as legal citizens.   That disenfranchises all other legal citizens in all other states, IMO.

[Cyber Liberty]

No they didn't. They ruled that Texas has no business telling other states how to run their elections.
As a firm believer in federalism, i'm sure you'd agree.

There is a shadow of a slight chance of my agreeing, had they ruled on the merits of the case.  Instead they chickened out.  They did not even look at the merits, so I consider it a dick move by a compromised, if not outright crooked court.

[txradioguy]

It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania, or any other state, runs their elections. Pennsylvania could select their electors with a coin flip, and it is none of Texas's business if they do.

And yet that's not what Texas was trying to do.  Texas and the states that joined them were trying to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

Cheating in a national election in violation of the Constitution affects other states.

[Cyber Liberty]

And yet that's not what Texas was trying to do.  Texas and the states that joined them were trying to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

Cheating in a national election in violation of the Constitution affects other states.

"Suck it up, Buttercup!"   

[txradioguy]

And speaking of "standing"...anyone notice illegals never have a problem getting standing in any U.S. court?

[txradioguy]

"Suck it up, Buttercup!"   

[HoustonSam]

It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania, or any other state, runs their elections. Pennsylvania could select their electors with a coin flip, and it is none of Texas's business if they do.

If *the state legislature of Pennsylvania* decides to select electors with a coin flip, then no, it's none of Texas' business.

But the state legislature of Pennsylvania did not make the changes in electoral law that are in question here.  Consequently Pennsylvania violated a contract, and Texas (and 19 other states as well) has every right to seek redress for that contract violation.

You see, it's not "Pennsylvania's election."  If they were voting for city council members or state offices or even their own US Senators and Representatives, that would be "Pennsylvania's election"; as much as we detest elected office holders like Nancy Pelosi, we don't argue that we can influence the electoral laws that continue to return her to office.  But a vote for President is everyone's election; its distinct procedures are made clear in the Constitution, and Pennsylvania violated those procedures.

SCOTUS might have decided that the will of the Pennsylvania legislature was somehow implicit in the PA Supreme Court ruling, but they didn't decide that because they refused even to consider the case, and in that SCOTUS failed the country.  By not even giving a hearing to a case in which they have original (hence sole) jurisdiction, they told 20 states that there is no forum to consider the grievance; "Texas and the other 19 states, if someone else violates the contract, there's nothing you can do, we won't even listen to your argument".

What do people do when they learn that they have no forum for resolution of grievance within a contract?  They exit the contract.

[txradioguy]

If *the state legislature of Pennsylvania* decides to select electors with a coin flip, then no, it's none of Texas' business.

But the state legislature of Pennsylvania did not make the changes in electoral law that are in question here.  Consequently Pennsylvania violated a contract, and Texas (and 19 other states as well) has every right to seek redress for that contract violation.

You see, it's not "Pennsylvania's election."  If they were voting for city council members or state offices or even their own US Senators and Representatives, that would be "Pennsylvania's election"; as much as we detest elected office holders like Nancy Pelosi, we don't argue that we can influence the electoral laws that continue to return her to office.  But a vote for President is everyone's election; its distinct procedures are made clear in the Constitution, and Pennsylvania violated those procedures.

SCOTUS might have decided that the will of the Pennsylvania legislature was somehow implicit in the PA Supreme Court ruling, but they didn't decide that because they refused even to consider the case, and in that SCOTUS failed the country.  By not even giving a hearing to a case in which they have original (hence sole) jurisdiction, they told 20 states that there is no forum to consider the grievance; "Texas and the other 19 states, if someone else violates the contract, there's nothing you can do, we won't even listen to your argument".

What do people do when they learn that they have no forum for resolution of grievance within a contract?  They exit the contract.

QFT

[skeeter]

What do people do when they learn that they have no forum for resolution of grievance within a contract?  They exit the contract.

Truer words were never spoken.

I'm now trying to figure out how this will work.

[andy58-in-nh]

If *the state legislature of Pennsylvania* decides to select electors with a coin flip, then no, it's none of Texas' business.

But the state legislature of Pennsylvania did not make the changes in electoral law that are in question here.  Consequently Pennsylvania violated a contract, and Texas (and 19 other states as well) has every right to seek redress for that contract violation.

You see, it's not "Pennsylvania's election."  If they were voting for city council members or state offices or even their own US Senators and Representatives, that would be "Pennsylvania's election"; as much as we detest elected office holders like Nancy Pelosi, we don't argue that we can influence the electoral laws that continue to return her to office.  But a vote for President is everyone's election; its distinct procedures are made clear in the Constitution, and Pennsylvania violated those procedures.

SCOTUS might have decided that the will of the Pennsylvania legislature was somehow implicit in the PA Supreme Court ruling, but they didn't decide that because they refused even to consider the case, and in that SCOTUS failed the country.  By not even giving a hearing to a case in which they have original (hence sole) jurisdiction, they told 20 states that there is no forum to consider the grievance; "Texas and the other 19 states, if someone else violates the contract, there's nothing you can do, we won't even listen to your argument".

What do people do when they learn that they have no forum for resolution of grievance within a contract?  They exit the contract.

Here's the problem: there is no contract involved here, and the case is not analogous to, or judicially remediable under the terms of contract law. 

Instead, this is a matter of state procedural rules, and those are governed not by the Federal Constitution, but by state law.

Thus, it is the duty of state Attorneys General to bring suit (or not) to ensure that the duties of state officials were faithfully executed.

This is a state issue, like it or not, because the Constitution of the United States does not mandate procedures to be promulgated or enforced by the elected or appointed officials of each state. As long as the procedures themselves are not in conflict with the Constitution, as to due process or other incorporated rights, the Supreme Court has no power of judicial review over them.

Look - in case there's any question (and I would assume there is none), I voted for Donald Trump and wanted him to win. The fact that dirty deeds were done (and they damn well were) is a miserable artifact of multi-generational, one-party power in highly populated urban districts. That problem will not be solved by Federal judicial intervention in an issue that needs to be addressed by cultural and social influence at the state and local level.

If you agree with me that Progressivism is a cancer on our body politic, that corruption is their ally, chaos their means, and control over your life their end, then you must be prepared to get involved personally, because that is how we will defeat the disease. Go to your town and school board meetings. Ask hard questions and prepare to be challenged. Know your reasons and your answers. And do not be afraid.

All real change comes from the bottom-up. Top-down is for collectivists and their elitist masters.

We can win. But we need to look to ourselves first, to fight. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Here's the problem: there is no contract involved here, and the case is not analogous to, or judicially remediable under the terms of contract law. 

Instead, this is a matter of state procedural rules, and those are governed not by the Federal Constitution, but by state law.

Thus, it is the duty of state Attorneys General to bring suit (or not) to ensure that the duties of state officials were faithfully executed.

This is a state issue, like it or not, because the Constitution of the United States does not mandate procedures to be promulgated or enforced by the elected or appointed officials of each state. As long as the procedures themselves are not in conflict with the Constitution, as to due process or other incorporated rights, the Supreme Court has no power of judicial review over them.

Look - in case there's any question (and I would assume there is none), I voted for Donald Trump and wanted him to win. The fact that dirty deeds were done (and they damn well were) is a miserable artifact of multi-generational, one-party power in highly populated urban districts. That problem will not be solved by Federal judicial intervention in an issue that needs to be addressed by cultural and social influence at the state and local level.

If you agree with me that Progressivism is a cancer on our body politic, that corruption is their ally, chaos their means, and control over your life their end, then you must be prepared to get involved personally, because that is how we will defeat the disease. Go to your town and school board meetings. Ask hard questions and prepare to be challenged. Know your reasons and your answers. And do not be afraid.

All real change comes from the bottom-up. Top-down is for collectivists and their elitist masters.

We can win. But we need to look to ourselves first, to fight.

"No contract?"  Are you kidding? Why do you think the Constitution has all those signatures and required Ratification?

[libertybele]

Here's the problem: there is no contract involved here, and the case is not analogous to, or judicially remediable under the terms of contract law. 

Instead, this is a matter of state procedural rules, and those are governed not by the Federal Constitution, but by state law.

Thus, it is the duty of state Attorneys General to bring suit (or not) to ensure that the duties of state officials were faithfully executed.

This is a state issue, like it or not, because the Constitution of the United States does not mandate procedures to be promulgated or enforced by the elected or appointed officials of each state. As long as the procedures themselves are not in conflict with the Constitution, as to due process or other incorporated rights, the Supreme Court has no power of judicial review over them.

Look - in case there's any question (and I would assume there is none), I voted for Donald Trump and wanted him to win. The fact that dirty deeds were done (and they damn well were) is a miserable artifact of multi-generational, one-party power in highly populated urban districts. That problem will not be solved by Federal judicial intervention in an issue that needs to be addressed by cultural and social influence at the state and local level.

If you agree with me that Progressivism is a cancer on our body politic, that corruption is their ally, chaos their means, and control over your life their end, then you must be prepared to get involved personally, because that is how we will defeat the disease. Go to your town and school board meetings. Ask hard questions and prepare to be challenged. Know your reasons and your answers. And do not be afraid.

All real change comes from the bottom-up. Top-down is for collectivists and their elitist masters.
[/u]
We can win. But we need to look to ourselves first, to fight.

 

[HoustonSam]

Here's the problem: there is no contract involved here, and the case is not analogous to, or judicially remediable under the terms of contract law. 

Instead, this is a matter of state procedural rules, and those are governed not by the Federal Constitution, but by state law.

Thus, it is the duty of state Attorneys General to bring suit (or not) to ensure that the duties of state officials were faithfully executed.

This is a state issue, like it or not, because the Constitution of the United States does not mandate procedures to be promulgated or enforced by the elected or appointed officials of each state. As long as the procedures themselves are not in conflict with the Constitution, as to due process or other incorporated rights, the Supreme Court has no power of judicial review over them.

Thanks @andy58-in-nh, your thoughts are well-reasoned and clearly expressed, and worthy of serious reflection.  I'm with you entirely on the "bottoms up" part of your argument; that's where the disease must be cured.  But there is a symptom which needs relieving as well, from the top down.

I'm not suggesting that we find the part of the Federal Code which regulates contracts and apply it here.  But I am saying that each of the several states voluntarily relinquishes certain powers to the Federal authority, and receives certain benefits from the Federal authority in exchange, and when states find themselves in conflict their forum is SCOTUS.  Most people would recognize this as some form of a contract, but if we are better off not using the term "contract" for this arrangement I'm fine with calling it something else.

Whatever we call the arrangement, it requires that the state legislature determine how electors are to be selected, and the Pennsylvania state legislature did so.  I appreciate Federal Judicial deference to state laws within the Reserved Powers, but I find it inexcusable that SCOTUS would not hear the case even when the Pennsylvania House of Representatives joined the case on the side of Texas.  Not only did SCOTUS deny a forum to the other states, they denied a forum to the specific state level authority empowered *at the Federal level* to determine the selection of electors.  I'll say it differently - the PA Legislature is not empowered by the PA Constitution or state laws to determine the selection of presidential electors, it's empowered by the US Constitution to do so, and there is no forum for considering questions of the US Constitution other than SCOTUS.  So I just see it differently, as a Federal Constitution rather than state procedural issue.

And SCOTUS did not make their decision on the basis you've described - trying to balance Federal and State authorities - they simply said that Texas has no business worrying about some other state's election laws.  Well I'm pretty sure the PA House of Representatives has plenty of business worrying about its own state election laws, and worrying about how the other branches of the PA State Government usurped authority conferred only on the legislature by the document which SCOTUS alone is empowered to interpret.

Having said all that, obviously we're having an academic argument; the facts have moved on.  And we agree much more on fundamentals than we disagree on this specific. I appreciate the thought you've put into this and your willingness to argue a position that you know will not be popular here.

[goatprairie]

Nice attempt at twisting my words there.   Rather trollish behavior, if you ask me.  But no, what I believe in is the US Constitution.  It is the safeguard of EVERY state... but only if every state upholds it.   In this last election, several (five) states did not uphold the Constitution, and yes... that negatively impacts all 50 states and yes... in that case, every other state has standing to demand adherence TO the US Constitution re: how they conduct their national elections.  You're damned straight.

Great. Good to know you like some states interfering with what other states do regarding elections. Then the next time Pubbies win an election, you'll be happy when a liberal state steps in and interferes with a state the Pubbies won because the liberal state didn't like something the conservative state did.
Just admit you'd be doing a political 180 if that occurred. Then you'd be screaming that it's none of the liberal state's business what the conservative state did.
Do you realize what a can of worms you'd have opened if states were allowed to interfere with the election processes of other states?
You're being conned by sore loser Trump and his legal flunkies.

[andy58-in-nh]

"No contract?"  Are you kidding? Why do you think the Constitution has all those signatures and required Ratification?

Because the formation of a government requires the consent of the governed. That is not a "contract" in the sense of commercial law: an offer and an acceptance, requiring valuable consideration of the part of the accepting party and an obligation to provide a service or product on the part of the offering party in exchange for such consideration. I think you are confusing a private contract with a governmental "compact", the latter of which is an agreement on the part of citizens to be governed in exchange for a promise to respect their rights as citizens. The former is a private matter; the latter provides the structural framework by which citizens agree to join a greater Federation in exchange for protection against foreign and domestic actors who might seek to violate both their liberty and the legitimate powers of member states. 

Our Constitution is a compact - it provides a framework: defined branches of government, with carefully delineated powers and limits to those powers, by which citizens of a Federal Republic agree to be governed, and to which individual States agree to be bound, should a majority of their citizens agree to such affiliation. In agreeing to be a state in the American Republic, the citizens do not surrender the rights of their state authorities to establish their own rules and laws, as long as they are not in conflict with the Federal Constitution (including its Amendments). In the event that state authorities violate the rules of their own state constitutions without also violating the US Constitution, it is the duty and obligation of that state's citizens to seek redress through their own authorities.

[goatprairie]

California violates federal law (laws formed by a consensus of representatives from all over the nation) by de facto legalization of illegal immigration. Whats worse, state politicians actually encourage them to vote. As a consequence millions do, guaranteeing the rats CA's 55 electoral votes every presidential election.

Is it your opinion the rest of the nation should just suck it up?

If Pennsylvania, California, or any other state violates a federal law, then it is up to the fed. gov. to step in if possible.
The SC ruled on electoral processes.  Texas is a state and not the federal government. They, the SC,  ruled that Texas, or any other state for that matter, has no standing on what Pennsylvania does as far as choosing electors.
Would you like some outside state to interfere with what your state does as far as choosing electors or whatever else they do?
Pennsylvania or any other state can choose any method of electors they want. Coin flip, spin the bottle, etc. Other states have no standing in what another state does in those matters.

[goatprairie]

And yet that's not what Texas was trying to do.  Texas and the states that joined them were trying to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

Cheating in a national election in violation of the Constitution affects other states.

Oh, come on...this was a grasping for straws by Team Trump. I'll bet not one of Trump's legal flunkies thought they had a chance for it to succeed. They just want to stay in Trump's good graces and not get trashed by Trump's base who believe everything he says.

[libertybele]

Great. Good to know you like some states interfering with what other states do regarding elections. Then the next time Pubbies win an election, you'll be happy when a liberal state steps in and interferes with a state the Pubbies won because the liberal state didn't like something the conservative state did.
Just admit you'd be doing a political 180 if that occurred. Then you'd be screaming that it's none of the liberal state's business what the conservative state did.
Do you realize what a can of worms you'd have opened if states were allowed to interfere with the election processes of other states?
You're being conned by sore loser Trump and his legal flunkies.

States are not allowed to interfere with another state's election processes.  Each state has it's own set of election laws, BUT each state MUST also abide by the laws set forth by the Constitution.  If they don't then they are denying each and every one of us a fair election.

The SCOTUS completely ignored the impact of a "rigged" election by various different states on every single one of us.

[txradioguy]

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." - Justice Robert Jackson