Ben Shapiro actually nailed it on this point - he's a massive coward. He'll rule with principle when his vote can't swing the decision, but votes for the path of least resistance when he's the swing vote. And because the Left is the mob, he always sides with them to keep them off his back.
I'd still like to read Kagan's ruling... "based on a technicality, we had to dismiss. But I'd have voted, once again, against the constitution if I could have."
The constitution says each state gets X electors who then cast a ballot.
If the state can force them to do as they want, why even have electors? Just give each state X weight, and forget the electors.
One of the points in this process is to allow direction among st the electors to see past shenanigans that may have happened in their state and bypass it. With this supreme court ruling, that's no longer the case.
This ruling does nothing to protect anything, as the ruling class in that state could just now declare all electors must vote D because we said so.
What are you talking about? How is a ruling-class edict as valid as vote count? Doesn't this ruling require electors to specifically respect the popular vote results?
The court judgement explicitly states that the determining / guiding principle on which this judgement is based is that "we the people rule". Also the constitution of America guarantees a democratic republican form of govt.
Hence, both because of this ruling and from the constitution, the states cannot have a non democratic electoral voting thing happening. e.g. a state cannot declare itself a monarchy and then have the monarch decide who the electors shall vote for.
And how does that prevent the governor or whoever of that state deciding since they were elected by the people, them assigning the federal votes is also based on "we the people rule".
Senators used to be chosen by the state, not by the the state's people, and it was in line with the constitution right? I don't see how this is any different.
If the state can force them to do as they want, why even have electors?
False premise. It's forcing them instead to do as the voters want, as evidenced the the popular vote result in the state—where "popular vote" is actually a thing.
At the national level, "popular vote" is a fantasy used by Democrats as an excuse for LOSING. If it were a real thing, then Trump would have campaigned in CA, TX, FL, NY, and IL only....and won it even more handily than he did in 2016. People forget he actually WON the "popular vote" by millions of ballots, since only legal, legitimate ballots count. Best estimates are about six million illegal votes, so instead of losing by three million, he won it by three million. Ouch, facts hurt, don't they, lefty losers? Yes, they do.
ONLY LEGAL VOTES COUNT.
ONLY LEGAL VOTES COUNT.
ONLY LEGAL VOTES COUNT.
Repeat it until it starts to sink in through all the drugs and and purple dye.
We use the Electoral College, in order to keep NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, and Houston from dictating the result of every election, making everyone else's vote pointless.
It prevents a state from making up numbers (we have a billion votes for our preferred candidate, so now popular vote matches our desire).
It allows individuals to act as a check against shenanigans, as a select few are voting, and not a large unaccountable group.
It was refreshing to see in 2016 that Washington state had a third of its electoral college decide they're not voting for that crook, and went in a different direction despite what their sheep voted.
If the state can force the electoral college to do whatever it wants, then I don't see how it lines up with the voters at all. States are going to tell their electors what they want to do, will of their local people ignored. Sensible accountable people ignored.
My premise remains intact because giving each state X weight covers my points 1 and 2. Having electors making their own decisions covers 3. There's no point in having electors anymore.
There's one state that I'm aware of that prevents faithless electors. Some other states have fines for faithless electors.
I always considered these state laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court just decided it is constitutional, and states can pass any laws they want in this regard.
Therefore, we lose a check/balance against a potential problem. It does nothing that I'm aware of to prevent something like the national vote compact, and ensures the electors will go along with it, instead of saying, screw you, our state didn't want this.
Thanks for the civics lesson Pete Williams. What would the American people do without your hard-hitting journalism?
Hey not fair given the dim-witted responses of average Americans to questions like "Who is the vice president" and "Can you point out Alaska on this map." I've seen enough Jesse Watters man on the street segments to know the MAJORITY would believe we have direct voting for the president by each citizen who votes. I'm saying IMO most Americans don't know what or who "electors" are, or what they do, or why, so the little explanation wasn't useless
You know it was ludicrous if it was a unanimous ruling.
Surprised Comrad Roberts didn't oppose. Just 'cause.
Ben Shapiro actually nailed it on this point - he's a massive coward. He'll rule with principle when his vote can't swing the decision, but votes for the path of least resistance when he's the swing vote. And because the Left is the mob, he always sides with them to keep them off his back.
He's Supreme Cuck.
There's still the matter of a "John Roberts" being on Epstein's flight log...
The only real 'out' he has there is that John Roberts is an outlandishly common name.
He also adopted his kids illegally.
He didn't want to write a long dissent by himself
I'd still like to read Kagan's ruling... "based on a technicality, we had to dismiss. But I'd have voted, once again, against the constitution if I could have."
😂 Sounds exactly like Kagan
needs more cookie crumb noises to be 100% spot on. throw in a few "nom nom noms" and you've got it.
Don’t forget the heavy breathing either.
KEK. This is actually exactly what she is...
Trump gets 4 more SCOTUS picks in his second term... One right before electron!!!
Voting against the constitution sounds like the exact opposite of what they're sworn to do.
That's a technicality :D
its what she does so....
"based on a technicality, we had to dismiss. But I'd have voted, once again, against the constitution if I could have."
seems like you'd have to be a lot more specific about the case in question
The guy that actually ran the Soviet Union under Stalin was a person named Kaganovich.
Guess who's related to Kaganovich?
I disagree.
The constitution says each state gets X electors who then cast a ballot.
If the state can force them to do as they want, why even have electors? Just give each state X weight, and forget the electors.
One of the points in this process is to allow direction among st the electors to see past shenanigans that may have happened in their state and bypass it. With this supreme court ruling, that's no longer the case.
This ruling does nothing to protect anything, as the ruling class in that state could just now declare all electors must vote D because we said so.
This ruling is awful.
What are you talking about? How is a ruling-class edict as valid as vote count? Doesn't this ruling require electors to specifically respect the popular vote results?
Not that I'm aware of, I was going based on what the linked article was conveying. I haven't read the whole ruling myself yet.
I disagree with your analysis.
The court judgement explicitly states that the determining / guiding principle on which this judgement is based is that "we the people rule". Also the constitution of America guarantees a democratic republican form of govt.
Hence, both because of this ruling and from the constitution, the states cannot have a non democratic electoral voting thing happening. e.g. a state cannot declare itself a monarchy and then have the monarch decide who the electors shall vote for.
And how does that prevent the governor or whoever of that state deciding since they were elected by the people, them assigning the federal votes is also based on "we the people rule".
Senators used to be chosen by the state, not by the the state's people, and it was in line with the constitution right? I don't see how this is any different.
False premise. It's forcing them instead to do as the voters want, as evidenced the the popular vote result in the state—where "popular vote" is actually a thing.
At the national level, "popular vote" is a fantasy used by Democrats as an excuse for LOSING. If it were a real thing, then Trump would have campaigned in CA, TX, FL, NY, and IL only....and won it even more handily than he did in 2016. People forget he actually WON the "popular vote" by millions of ballots, since only legal, legitimate ballots count. Best estimates are about six million illegal votes, so instead of losing by three million, he won it by three million. Ouch, facts hurt, don't they, lefty losers? Yes, they do.
ONLY LEGAL VOTES COUNT.
ONLY LEGAL VOTES COUNT.
ONLY LEGAL VOTES COUNT.
Repeat it until it starts to sink in through all the drugs and and purple dye.
We use the Electoral College, in order to keep NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, and Houston from dictating the result of every election, making everyone else's vote pointless.
We use the electoral college for several things.
It was refreshing to see in 2016 that Washington state had a third of its electoral college decide they're not voting for that crook, and went in a different direction despite what their sheep voted.
If the state can force the electoral college to do whatever it wants, then I don't see how it lines up with the voters at all. States are going to tell their electors what they want to do, will of their local people ignored. Sensible accountable people ignored.
My premise remains intact because giving each state X weight covers my points 1 and 2. Having electors making their own decisions covers 3. There's no point in having electors anymore.
There's one state that I'm aware of that prevents faithless electors. Some other states have fines for faithless electors.
I always considered these state laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court just decided it is constitutional, and states can pass any laws they want in this regard.
Therefore, we lose a check/balance against a potential problem. It does nothing that I'm aware of to prevent something like the national vote compact, and ensures the electors will go along with it, instead of saying, screw you, our state didn't want this.
But that compact doesn't even effect anything at the moment right? Not enough states have signed to it.
Peer pressure on some of them?
Disappointed... that he didn't get nominated to the Supreme Court after simply asking the president!
That guy is so fucking duplicitous.
He’s too old!!!
I'm at work so I can't watch FN. But I'm both surprised and not surprised by this.
Hey not fair given the dim-witted responses of average Americans to questions like "Who is the vice president" and "Can you point out Alaska on this map." I've seen enough Jesse Watters man on the street segments to know the MAJORITY would believe we have direct voting for the president by each citizen who votes. I'm saying IMO most Americans don't know what or who "electors" are, or what they do, or why, so the little explanation wasn't useless
MAGA