GOP dilemma — how to keep Trumpers yet regain anti-Trumpers

[roamer_1]

It's a "spurious claim" to bring to the court solid evidence that enough states violated the Constitution and as a result wrongly altered the outcome of a presidential election?

Of course not. But that did not happen.

Are you denying that the accused states did not pick their electors by invalid means?   The evidence is public record.

No, I am denying that anyone but the legislatures of those states respectively have any standing in the determination thereof - There was a time that it looked good - Proving interstate collusion would lift it above an internal matter, because then it is a matter of several states in collusion, which is beyond the jurisdiction of state legislatures respectively - THAT was the money shot. THAT ts where the SCOTUS gets jurisdiction. But it failed to be proven, leaving it in singular incidences in respective states - which is an internal matter of their legislatures as written in the Constitution.

Are you claiming that the Court can neglect evidence of unconstitutional action by the states when it's POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT to do so?   Why was the Court set up with lifetime appointments?   That was on the theory that people with lifetime appointments would not be politically motivated.   You'll notice that I answered the question for you.

The court rightly determined it has no business messing with internal state business.

So, no, the reason the USSC did not hear this case was not because they were going to miss their tee-time.   The reason they rejected the case was that accepting the case meant the public fools who didn't already know about the electoral theft would have seen the evidence of it and that the judges who were supposed to be non-political were being totally political.

according to the whim of gossipers. Again, you have nothing if you cannot prove it. Facts don't care about your feelings, and I am not about to throw federalism under the bus just so Tumpy can take a win.

[roamer_1]

It's a matter of public record.    Your juvenile insistence that it hasn't been proven is boring.

'public record' is newspapers and worm-tongued reporters. It has not been proven - vetted and entered in evidence to be pondered by both sides fairly - That's what law and order is for.

[Bigun]

Proving interstate collusion would lift it above an internal matter, because then it is a matter of several states in collusion, which is beyond the jurisdiction of state legislatures respectively - THAT was the money shot. THAT ts where the SCOTUS gets jurisdiction. But it failed to be proven, ...

The last time I looked EVIDENCE has to be presented in court so pray tell me how that is to happen if the court flat out refuses to even hear the case?

@roamer_1

[skeeter]

The last time I looked EVIDENCE has to be presented in court so pray tell me how that is to happen if the court flat out refuses to even hear the case?

@roamer_1

The only way to win this game is to not play.

[roamer_1]

What part of the requirement that state legislatures determine the manner of the choosing of the electors is too difficult for you to comprehend?

Besides all of it?

What part of 'It's the state legislatures business (and no one else)' don't YOU understand? If that power is SOLELY resting in the state legislature, that means it's nobody else's business.

What part of the fact that a court cannot alter the laws regarding the process of selecting the electors established by the legislature?

Besides all of it?

Funny, as you are asking a court to do just that. It is the legislatures' business. If they choose not to enforce it, that does not make it yours, or the courts.

When part of the fact that no person in the executive branch of a state can alter the process of selecting the electors established by the legislatures have you failed to accept?

Besides all of it?

Whether I accept it, or anyone else, does not matter - It is the Legislature's business to address it. NOT THE COURTS.

The job of a state's Secretary of State is to enforce the laws written by the state's legislature.   They have no authority to change ballot deadlines, signature requirements, poll closing times, nothing.   They are SECRETARIES.  They follow orders.

And it is the legislature that holds the paddle, not you. And not SCOTUS.

Judges can't alter anything, either.

Unless you want them to, of course.

Conservatives embrace the Constitution, not just the parts that let the Rodents steal elections.

I am the one standing on the Constitution and defending federalism.

[Bigun]

The only way to win this game is to not play.

  That is exactly what they did and the Republic is now a dead letter!

[Bigun]

I am the one standing on the Constitution and defending federalism.

Nope! You most assuredly are not doing that with your arguments here. Just the opposite in fact.

@roamer_1

[roamer_1]

The last time I looked EVIDENCE has to be presented in court so pray tell me how that is to happen if the court flat out refuses to even hear the case?

@roamer_1

That was the point of the suits wrt electronic filing - and for all the hubris blown around in the press, they had nothing. There is still an option on that. Dominion is suing - So one would suppose they are confident enough to open it all to discovery... Which does not look good for Tumpy either.

But you'll get to see...

[roamer_1]

Nope! You most assuredly are not doing that with your arguments here. Just the opposite in fact.

@roamer_1

I will flatly disagree with you in that @Bigun and that does not happen much.

It is not in the interest of federalism to force a legislature to act upon their SOLE power. In the forcing, you prove it is not a SOLE power after all. And mark my words, you will not like where that goes.

@Bigun

[Bigun]

I will flatly disagree with you in that @Bigun and that does not happen much.

It is not in the interest of federalism to force a legislature to act upon their SOLE power. In the forcing, you prove it is not a SOLE power after all. And mark my words, you will not like where that goes.

@Bigun

What you don't seem to be getting here @roamer_1 is that the legislatures HAD acted and laws WERE in place that governed how presidential electors were to be chosen in their states. Those laws were violated on a grand scale and, under the Constitution, THAT is not allowed!

[Bigun]

That was the point of the suits wrt electronic filing - and for all the hubris blown around in the press, they had nothing. There is still an option on that. Dominion is suing - So one would suppose they are confident enough to open it all to discovery... Which does not look good for Tumpy either.

But you'll get to see...

WRONG!  Texas vs Pennsylvania, as has been pointed out to you numerous times on this very thread by @Right_in_Virginia and myself for sure and perhaps others as well, sought ONLY to enforce the constitutional provision that electors be chosen in a manner prescribed by the legislatures of the states. THAT did not happen in 2020 and that is ALL that the suit sought to correct! @roamer_1

[roamer_1]

What you don't seem to be getting here @roamer_1 is that the legislatures HAD acted and laws WERE in place that governed how presidential electors were to be chosen in their states. Those laws were violated on a grand scale and, under the Constitution, THAT is not allowed!

@Bigun
I get that just fine. But the enforcement remains with the legislature if it is indeed their SOLE power. It is their acquiescence that is on point. Had they got a bug in their butt and barked at the state administration, and that administration ignored them, THEN the courts would be there to provide remedy TO THE LEGISLATURE. It is the legislature that has the 'injury'.

But in passive acquiescence, The legislature is claiming no harm to their SOLE power. That is exactly why it will get nowhere. The state legislatures respectively are the only ones with standing. They are the ones with 'harm'. but they are not the ones standing in front of the court.

I said this same thing early on, maybe to @Cyber Liberty ... If they could not prove interstate collusion, the whole thing would collapse into a score of separate issues and those are a matter for the state, and the crime and punishment of it likely cannot sway the election, as each is treated as an instance.

And that is exactly what happened.

[roamer_1]

WRONG!  Texas vs Pennsylvania, as has been pointed out to you numerous times on this very thread by @Right_in_Virginia and myself for sure and perhaps others as well, sought ONLY to enforce the constitutional provision that electors be chosen in a manner prescribed by the legislatures of the states. THAT did not happen in 2020 and that is ALL that the suit sought to correct! @roamer_1

RIGHT. But the harm is to the legislature. They are not the ones crying foul.

[Bigun]

But the enforcement remains with the legislature if it is indeed their SOLE power.

NO! Enforcement is the sole purpose of having a SCOTUS in the first damned place! And the legislatures were screaming their heads off at the time as I recall.

I am not going to write you a book here but the state of Texas sued the state of Pennsylvania for allowing laws enacted by the legislature of Pennsylvania governing how presidential electors are to be selected to be wholesale violated by persons not authorized to do so and that damned sure is the business of SCOTUS!

[roamer_1]

NO! Enforcement is the sole purpose of having a SCOTUS in the first damned place! And the legislatures were screaming their heads off at the time as I recall.

I am not going to write you a book here but the state of Texas sued the state of Pennsylvania for allowing laws enacted by the legislature of Pennsylvania governing how presidential electors are to be selected to be wholesale violated by persons not authorized to do so and that damned sure is the business of SCOTUS!

We will have to disagree - And I think that the reason the case was thrown out.
And no, the SCOTUS has no arm in enforcement. Who is it that would enforce their will?

[Bigun]

We will have to disagree - And I think that the reason the case was thrown out.
And no, the SCOTUS has no arm in enforcement. Who is it that would enforce their will?

SCOTUS renders opinions which, in this case, would have weighed upon the actions of several other states as well, and since the election of a president IS a federal matter, enforcement would have been up to the Department of Justice.

Doesn't matter now as the once-great republic known as the United States of America is dead as a post because of its failure to enforce its own founding document i.e. the Constitution. I will stipulate that this is far from the first time that has happened.

[roamer_1]

Doesn't matter now as the once-great republic known as the United States of America is dead as a post because of its failure to enforce its own founding document i.e. the Constitution.

@Bigun
On that much we are agreed - and that for many years.

[Right_in_Virginia]

We will have to disagree - And I think that the reason the case was thrown out.
And no, the SCOTUS has no arm in enforcement. Who is it that would enforce their will?

Every decision made by the Supreme Court is (theoretically) an enforcement of the US Constitution,  This is why it is so important to principled conservatives to have constitutionalist judges who interpret the constitution as written @roamer_1

Had the Supreme Court found in favor of Texas, the most predictable remedy would have been to send the choice of electors back to the state legislatures of the defendant states with their written decision and the order that the legislature review the process and the choice of electors for President of the United States.  If so decided by the legislature(s), the electors could have been voided and reassigned to the President.

The arm of enforcement is in the design of our federal government.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter; their decision stands.  How do you think so many babies never saw daylight?

[roamer_1]

Every decision made by the Supreme Court is (theoretically) an enforcement of the US Constitution,  This is why it is so important to principled conservatives to have constitutionalist judges who interpret the constitution as written @roamer_1

No, in fact, it is not, @Right_in_Virginia . The court holds no means of enforcing anything.

Had the Supreme Court found in favor of Texas, the most predictable remedy would have been to send the choice of electors back to the state legislatures of the defendant states with their written decision and the order that the legislature review the process and the choice of electors for President of the United States.  If so decided by the legislature(s), the electors could have been voided and reassigned to the President.

...which the legislators could have done anyway, and decided not to. What makes you think that would have changed anything? Had they wanted such a change they would have done it on their own. I am not fond of federal impositions.

The arm of enforcement is in the design of our federal government.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter; their decision stands.  How do you think so many babies never saw daylight?

Again there is no enforcement. The enforcement is performed by other bodies instructed by the decision.In this case, in your scenario, it would have 'forced' those state bodies to likely reiterate the electors as they stand, and there ain't a damn thing the SCOTUS could do about that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What part of 'It's the state legislatures business (and no one else)' don't YOU understand? If that power is SOLELY resting in the state legislature, that means it's nobody else's business.

It is everyone's business if the power to choose electors did not rest SOLELY with any state legislature @roamer_1   

This is the essential question in the Texas suit.  If the court had determined the role of the state legislatures was usurped, the selection of electors in those states are unconstitutional --- and cannot stand by the directions followed.

Seven justices shoved their heads up their asses and refused to look at what happened and decide whether or not the Texas claim had merit --- and if so, give back to the defendant state legislatures their Constitutionally guaranteed right to choose electors for President of the United States according to their approved directions.

I don't know why you're still confused about this. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, in fact, it is not, @Right_in_Virginia . The court holds no means of enforcing anything.

Then stop calling yourself a principled, constitutional conservative.

[roamer_1]

Then stop calling yourself a principled, constitutional conservative.

Because I tell you the truth? Not likely.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because I tell you the truth? Not likely.

Even you can't possibly believe this. 

Your every answer proves an inability to grasp basic concepts in the Constitution and their application.  Take some time to cool down.  You're making a mockery of our founding document and a clown of yourself.

[roamer_1]

It is everyone's business if the power to choose electors did not rest SOLELY with any state legislature @roamer_1   

This is the essential question in the Texas suit.  If the court had determined the role of the state legislatures was usurped, the selection of electors in those states are unconstitutional --- and cannot stand by the directions followed.

Thereby imposing THEIR will upon those legislators - Which negates their SOLE right. Had those legislators been in any way jealous of what their own agents did, They would have moved to fix it. FORCING them to fix it means the right is not SOLELY their own, but is at the beck and call of several states or the courts.

Seven justices shoved their heads up their asses and refused to look at what happened and decide whether or not the Texas claim had merit --- and if so, give back to the defendant state legislatures their Constitutionally guaranteed right to choose electors for President of the United States according to their approved directions.

I don't know why you're still confused about this.

I think they were right to leave it lay. At best, picking it up would have opened a jurisdictional can of worms, and at worst, the power assigned by the constitution to those legislators would have been abrogated... nullified. Be careful of precedence.

[roamer_1]

Even you can't possibly believe this. 

Your every answer proves an inability to grasp basic concepts in the Constitution and their application.  Take some time to cool down.  You're making a mockery of our founding document and a clown of yourself.

See, I see that the other way around.Desiring the federal government to impose it's will upon the sovereignty of a state is exactly the opposite of federalism.