2115
Comments (140)
sorted by:
129
Throwingway22 129 points ago +135 / -6

Do you mean like Texas and half the other states sued PA over in 2020? The case that SCOTUS just couldn't be bothered with?

59
Godchildren [S] 59 points ago +59 / -0

Democrats say this idea, encompassed by the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, is a fringe conservative legal theory that could endanger voting rights. The Supreme Court has reportedly never ruled on the doctrine.

The doctrine, if endorsed by the high court, could allow state legislatures to select presidential electors in disputed elections, something critics decry as a threat to democracy.

66
TheRoadGoesOnForever 66 points ago +66 / -0

If dems say it could endanger voting rights then you know it’s good!

26
that1guy1981 26 points ago +26 / -0

If Democrats call it a danger to democracy then it is a good thing, is a good general guideline but not always true. A state w/ a %51 democrat leaning legislature, could appoint electors for Michelle Obama even if DeSantis clearly won that state. An Election could be swung, not by swing states, but by swing legislatures w/a razor thin majority.

15
lilbuffy 15 points ago +15 / -0

True but if it could "endanger voting rights" according to the dems they've already done the math and they don't like the answer.

13
Checkmate6Romeo 13 points ago +13 / -0

I'm no psychologist but I noticed that you went from mentioning Michelle Obama in one sentence to using the words "swung" and "swing" in the next.

8
okboomer59 8 points ago +8 / -0

shwing

1
PhantomShield72 1 point ago +1 / -0

-dance moves in loose pants intensify-

1
UpTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think it works in our favor more often than not here. We would've gotten Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania

28
Throwingway22 28 points ago +28 / -0

This is certainly about far more than that. The courts (I think we all know which courts) have made it a norm to intercede in matters in which they have no jurisdiction and they finally went to far in trying to dictate congressional maps. This is ostensibly the same question that Texas posed when the PA supreme court dictated that they, not the legislature or state constitution, could unilaterally change the way elections are run.

It's never been in controversy that the state legislature could appoint electors however they choose, I just think it's a shame that they all choose elections. I'd personally like to see them mandate that candidates have to duel with pistols at dawn on election day, winner gets the electors.

10
deleted 10 points ago +13 / -3
3
America_No_1 3 points ago +3 / -0

So why was this a top SCOTUS issue in all of liberal media the last few days? They've overwhelmingly called it devastating to THEM. You're saying the opposite? Do we both have it wrong?

9
aaafirefly123 9 points ago +9 / -0

Because they will lose their hold on purple states.

It will make blue states bluer yes, but it will cost them in red states.

4
America_No_1 4 points ago +4 / -0

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

7
aaafirefly123 7 points ago +7 / -0

It would also be another step toward civil war.

States being drawn into camps, like slave and free states.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
GodHatesBiden 2 points ago +2 / -0

because they're concerned about trump doing it. it has always been a fringe position, and he had to go through like 14 attorneys to find one willing to advance it rhetorically, but then Eastman never himself put his career on the line for it.

so they're concerned right now for trump with tunnel vision.

but remove trump, and its 100% something they could do, too.

I think its a bad idea.

2
hey_spike 2 points ago +2 / -0

But this round, following the census, there were more red state legislatures.

4
RINOhunt 4 points ago +4 / -0

Wasting ammo on politicians during a shortage? Seems irresponsible. Duct tape their left hands together an let them knife fight.

1
True_Curmudgeon 1 point ago +1 / -0

We need stipulations on exactly how this duel is won tho. Many duels ended with a miss and a handshake.

1
RosettaStone 1 point ago +1 / -0

Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid - Knife Fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqhm36sjVE

2
True_Curmudgeon 2 points ago +2 / -0

😆

1
MastaJoda 1 point ago +1 / -0

You obviously don’t know the rules of a proper duel. They were not all like the Hollywood, Wild West version.

1
True_Curmudgeon 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re out of your element Donnie

7
SouthernFriedFreedom 7 points ago +7 / -0

Anything that's a threat to Democracy according to the Left is a good thing for the Republic.

4
Goldsteinbergsky 4 points ago +5 / -1

Correction: a threat to their "democracy."

4
PureBloodedSuperStr8 4 points ago +4 / -0

Their hypocrisy

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well WE don't have a democracy. THEY do.

3
hey_spike 3 points ago +3 / -0

We will replace their democracy with our republic.

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you for the exactly correct response.

4
deleted 4 points ago +6 / -2
4
War_Hamster 4 points ago +4 / -0

Even that CA map wouldn't shut out Republicans completely, as you suggest.

They could steal maybe 10-20 seats, judging by the proposed swings that were overturned in the past year.

Of course, the better solution is to eliminate national political parties altogether....but I digress.

2
Inquisitor_Corvus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Eliminate with extreme prejudice and I’m in for the win!

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Now we're talking.

2
Worldtraveler0405 2 points ago +2 / -0

I haven't been here a while, but wanted to congratulate you on the Roe v Wade thing.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good to see you, my friend.

Overturning Roe was great for millions of innocent babies, but I'm also celebrating what perhaps may be a move back to States' Rights.

Don't be a stranger. I'm a bit busy myself these days and the new Lady Hamster is taking up a lot of time, but this site is still home.

2
Inquisitor_Corvus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Range me.

0
flashersenpai 0 points ago +1 / -1

Good. Accelerate.

1
BestTimeToBAlive 1 point ago +1 / -0

could allow state legislatures to select presidential electors in disputed elections

I thought that they already have the power to do so within the constitution? But we had dueling electors bc the state legislators didn’t have the balls to deal w the problem until it was too late?

How could this ruling, if it happens, help give the state legislators MORE power than they already have?

7
__bryan 7 points ago +7 / -0

it seems like it sort of makes sense in retrospect, they did not want to get in the way of such a turmoil shit show of an election because they were cowards. I don't know what has changed things maybe the fact that they have more justices that are conservative, but they seem to be taking all these cases that they never took before. or am I just imagining that?

3
BaldEagle1337 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well now it's just going to look like they are taking action because if bad outcome instead of on it's merits.

3
leakmouth 3 points ago +4 / -1

Maybe they’re trying to make it up to us after fucking us over with Biden and seeing what a complete fucking disaster he is. I think reality is starting to sink in for most people including SCOTUS and they’re starting to realize just how much worse things are about to get. They may actually regret not getting involved with the 2020 election when they think about their grandchildren and the future which is looking very fucking bleak. Too late motherfuckers

4
tansal 4 points ago +4 / -0

Anyone with a brain knows that the PA election should be instantly invalidated

2
ThisIsMyBurnerPepe 2 points ago +2 / -0

So true. State where I live, the law literally says the state legislature regulates elections, but we’re so overrun with Democrats they don’t give a shit and the Republicans activists and strategists get 6-7 figures if they just show up and lose.

1
LogicalPatriot 1 point ago +2 / -1

No, Texas sued PA for damages that were not well defined and that's why the Cades was kicked back.

This case is about the Gov, AG and Judges under the AG not enforcing the laws per the Legistatures decree. Thomas already mentioned the possibility that the ruling from SCOTUS would be a majority decision in favor of the Legislators.

39
Gadsden 39 points ago +39 / -0

The downside to this is that liberal states will "regulate" themselves right into another stolen election.

12
deleted 12 points ago +16 / -4
15
DaayTerkErJerbs 15 points ago +16 / -1

Good then conservatives will abandon blue shithole states an we will finally go to appropriate areas of the country. We will be a hop skip n jump from finally accepting reality that we can not reside in the same country anymore. The sooner people accept reality the sooner we can build an move forward. Bulkinization.. seperate.. peace of mind.

3
Rollyjogger 3 points ago +4 / -1

This is where I am at also. Has to happen.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +2 / -1

hell yeah dude

0
deleted 0 points ago +4 / -4
2
JuanTitor 2 points ago +4 / -2

There is no 54-0 map. Probably isn't even a 45-9 map.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
JuanTitor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe with 2,000 mules, but reality doesn't work like political game theory. I assume that is made using precinct data, but even then it wouldn't lead to 54-0 (though it might put it past 45-9)

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't see that as 54-0. The vast majority of inland CA is very bright red.

1
DaayTerkErJerbs 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly.. the federal government is useless. There is nothing of value there. We dont want or need any 3 letter agencies. We need to setup replacement agencies in our areas an secede. The sooner Conservatives realize we arent reforming our way out of this, we arent voting our way out of this, an we cant coexist with these people.. the sooner we can stop wasting time, energy, an resources on pointless endeavers an use our time building something productive.

5
TearofLys 5 points ago +5 / -0

That is only if redistricting is considered part of an election. I think you could easily argue that it is not.

3
tansal 3 points ago +3 / -0

Most states are red 🙂

1
Octomonkey 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’ll only add more fuel to the exodus fire that has been happening. People with zero representation will move or attempt to what is being done with the Greater Idaho Project. Either way, the blue states will continue to shrink in seats and Electoral Votes, just like they did after the 2020 Census.

-1
War_Hamster -1 points ago +1 / -2

Greater Idaho Project, just like the New California initiative, don't pass Constitutional muster.

That's a shame, as I'd love to have San Diego and Imperial Counties join Arizona.

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +3 / -1

don't pass Constitutional muster

Dream big. It's just a piece of paper. Your rights exist regardless.

0
War_Hamster 0 points ago +1 / -1

I like your comment, but these efforts are making flawed Constitutional arguments, which is my point.

But I do dream big, and will continue to do so.

1
LogicalPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wouldn't tbe ruling of 'Wesberry vs Sanders' shoot this doomer theory in the balls?

Also, you could repeal the Uniform Congressional Districting Act of 67. That would eliminate the problem altogether.

16
Light_HIV_Effect 16 points ago +16 / -0

They already have that power, it's called Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.

What we need are the pussy state legislatures to actually use their power and stop relying on their supreme courts, and corrupt governors and secretaries of state to run their elections. (Looking at PA, AZ and GA)

9
War_Hamster 9 points ago +9 / -0

Thank you for pointing out that this is Constitutional law already.

What we need are the people to get involved in their local elections so that they send the right type of people to the State Legislature, and then your vision will be fulfilled.

That's starting to happen.

3
Littleirishmaid 3 points ago +3 / -0

☝️

12
Filthy_MALE 12 points ago +12 / -0

Judges will invite this because judges are basically just nerds that want to operate behind scenes. They don’t want to be considered “kingmakers” and make rulings that have lasting effect unless they are sure they will be beneficial and reasonable.

Not the case with lefty judges, however.

9
c89631147e 9 points ago +10 / -1

States already have that power.

It’s clear as day in the Constitution.

Shame States refuse to exercise this power and tell these judges to fuck off.

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
9
day221 9 points ago +10 / -1

Thomas Sowell has entered the chat.

7
AnnieMm 7 points ago +7 / -0

They will give the State legislature sole discretion because that is exactly what the Constitution says. We are winning! Photo ID to vote incoming...

2
MastaJoda 2 points ago +2 / -0

Incoming? Lol sounds like you’re behind enemy lines, fren!?

5
War_Hamster 5 points ago +5 / -0

Zerohedge needs to work on its headline here.

State Legislatures already have the power to regulate elections. The case is to make it crystal clear that judicial activists cannot overturn this again, as they did in the lead up to November 2020.

5
I_Love_45-70_Gov 5 points ago +5 / -0

Odd how they are being "given" power that they already have Constitutionally.

5
Pray_for_Trump 5 points ago +6 / -1

This terrifies me considering all the traitorous RINOs we seem to put in office.

4
TheRealJaredHolt 4 points ago +4 / -0

You mean the power they already fucking have and that courts never had but illegally siezed with practically zero pushback from the legislature?

4
USPatriot45 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Breaking news; Vermont received 81 million votes for Democratic Candidate"

4
Schroeder09 4 points ago +4 / -0

Give state legislatures the power? It's already explicitly there's in the constitution. They just didn't have any balls. They don't have any balls alls they had to say "was we are sending the electors because a bunch of corrupt precincts and jurisdictions cheated. If you're mad at us and feel disenfranchised go riot at your board of election members houses and mayor's house. They're the ones who disenfranchised you through cheating."

No balls. Worthless RINOs

3
BrionK 3 points ago +3 / -0

Did someone hand them a copy of the constitution?

3
AdmrlNelson 3 points ago +3 / -0

Pretty sure this is already covered in the Constitution. Article 1 section 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

3
AnotherDeadVoter 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cool, now who will enforce these rules? Cause a fuck ton were ignored this last round.

3
hey_spike 3 points ago +3 / -0

No more corrupt SOS's making up new election rules.

3
Winston_Smith84 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exactly like it says in the Constitution.

3
OldZilla 3 points ago +3 / -0

No STANDING!

3
Magabirdlady2 3 points ago +3 / -0

As it should be.

3
HunterBidensPC 3 points ago +3 / -0

Let me get this straight-

I can get elected to office then I can make the election laws?

That’s fucking retarded

3
JohnParker1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Where in the hell did judges get the authority to over ride the Constitution? The constitution, itself, gives State legislatures sole authority to do that. Not judges.

3
ClubberLang 3 points ago +3 / -0

Then we can stack the legislatures and overturn whenever they don’t go our way. This is what we need. This would have helped us overturn in 2020. But the uniparty won’t let it happen.

3
cherbui 3 points ago +4 / -1

Lets hope these scotus do their damn job .. Texas was in their right to challenge the election they F that one up .. lets hope they grow a fucking pair and fix their fucking mess

2
PackingHeat 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kavanaugh is a wobbler on this. Keep in mind election tion fraud is nu.ber one on the list.

2
TheMadManDidItAgain 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is exactly how it is described in the Constitution.

The case is more about the other state branches interfering in the election decisions... Either by making their own, or overruling what the legislature decides.

2
slokill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Red pill suppository incoming!

...I hope.

2
Brellin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Deep State not liking these recent rulings I think

2
acasper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Uhhh…

2
MythArcana 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which is worse? Look at California as an example. At least you have a shot at getting a proper ruling with a judge, but never in a million years with those fagtards in legislature.

2
Fussbudget 2 points ago +2 / -0

is this a good thing or a bad thing? i tend to have more faith in judges than legislatures

2
CheeksMcClap 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, and it'll be heard AFTER midterm elections when session starts again in October. It doesn't help us for midterms at all.

2
JohnCalhoun 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wasn't that is how it is supposed to be?

2
roadrunner0 2 points ago +2 / -0

Be careful what you wish for since a Democrat majority in a State government could allow for massive cheating and fraud..

2
Papabravo12 2 points ago +2 / -0

You mean like it already is supposed to fucking be? Fuck this shit and our retarded country

2
GrayManNumber333 2 points ago +2 / -0

Judges never should have gotten involved. Once they where the biggest evidence that Republican Party is skum: they didn’t use that to attack democrat elections.

1
mass55th 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought that issue was already dealt with in Bush v. Gore in 2000. SCOTUS proclaimed in their decision that only State Legislatures can create, or change election law, not courts. It's one of the reasons I was so pissed that they rejected 2020 cases that were specifically related to that decision. If only State Legislatures can create/change election law, then it stands to reason that government officials can't create/change election law either, and SCOTUS should have heard every case that pertained to their 2000 decision.

1
Weallseethetruth 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's how it was supposed to be too begin with!! This is how they cheated by going around the legislation because of the "covid emergency"

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
UltraMAGAMilton 1 point ago +1 / -0

Um, It's Called Article 1 Section 4 Clause I . . .

1
Wayne_from_KC 1 point ago +1 / -0

This could potentially actually be the catalyst that overturns the 2020 election…

-2
Spermythecat -2 points ago +2 / -4

This could backfire due to supremacy of federal power over the states.

3
MastaJoda 3 points ago +3 / -0

Which isn’t a thing says the Constitution.

-1
Spermythecat -1 points ago +1 / -2

Constitution doesn’t matter, only the court matters. They can say constitution means something else. The court, feds, and most police power has to be neutered or at least turned upon the real enemies of this country.