2 ms·

For disregarding court orders, it's the same problem as trying to charge trump. The governor's in charge of enforcement. Punishment comes in the form of losing

by 8note 6y ago

For disregarding court orders, it's the same problem as trying to charge trump. The governor's in charge of enforcement. Punishment comes in the form of losing elections or impeachments, not law enforcement. I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic. It seems to me like the poll watcher is the person with standing? They could bring the exact same case a second time, that they were not able to watch. that comes against another legal doctrine now that the elections have been certified -- it's a moot point The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes. I find it strange that that they weren't also suing to Wisconsin for the same thing and want to throw out Texan republican votes equal to the number of Wisconsin votes counted in this manner they don't like?

tathougies 6y ago
> The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes. No it's not though. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether the constitution allows the governor to make up election rules or whether it's just the state legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. By precedent, they should have answered it. Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. Perhaps you can argue Texas has no standing to tell PA what to do. But shouldn't a PA voter have standing to question whether his governor can make up rules? How come absolutely no one has standing? > I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic. But they violated a court order. Sure, it's to stop a pandemic. But a judge ordered that order to be violated. Court orders supersede gubernatorial edicts. > The governor's in charge of enforcement I'm sorry... that's not good enough for an election. Can a governor allow votes to be made up even though it's against the law, because the governor is 'in charge of enforcement'. Can Trump use the national guard to stop the Biden electors from meeting because he's 'in charge of enforcement'. At some point, the government needs to be held responsible for lack of enforcement of basic civil rights -- election integrity is a governmental duty. You can't just choose not to enforce it.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing. > Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    So what you're saying is, even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules, the governor and officials can unilaterally change them and there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules? Do you understand why someone might find that worrisome? Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith. Do you not think this is a valid question that someone has the right to ask and receive an answer to? > You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. How is it not a federal question as to how states choose presidential electors? The electors are chosen by the legislature. The constitution says (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2): > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature? Do you honestly, in good faith, believe that the governors changing the rules for electors is not a question that ought to be addressed by courts given what I just cited above? I agree that federal courts cannot answer questions on how states elect Senators, but electors are clearly different. I am not asking you to agree with my interpretation of the law, but rather asking you if you really believe this is not a federal issue. Can Oregon simply decide tomorrow to simply not hold elections for President tomorrow?

by 8note 6y ago

tathougies 6y ago

> The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes. No it's not though. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether the constitution allows the governor to make up election rules or whether it's just the state legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. By precedent, they should have answered it. Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. Perhaps you can argue Texas has no standing to tell PA what to do. But shouldn't a PA voter have standing to question whether his governor can make up rules? How come absolutely no one has standing? > I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic. But they violated a court order. Sure, it's to stop a pandemic. But a judge ordered that order to be violated. Court orders supersede gubernatorial edicts. > The governor's in charge of enforcement I'm sorry... that's not good enough for an election. Can a governor allow votes to be made up even though it's against the law, because the governor is 'in charge of enforcement'. Can Trump use the national guard to stop the Biden electors from meeting because he's 'in charge of enforcement'. At some point, the government needs to be held responsible for lack of enforcement of basic civil rights -- election integrity is a governmental duty. You can't just choose not to enforce it.

jcranmer 6y ago
> The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing. > Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.
- tathougies 6y ago
  So what you're saying is, even though the constitution says the legislatures set the rules, the governor and officials can unilaterally change them and there is no one who has any standing to challenge those rules? Do you understand why someone might find that worrisome? Again, I am attempting to engage in good faith. Do you not think this is a valid question that someone has the right to ask and receive an answer to? > You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. How is it not a federal question as to how states choose presidential electors? The electors are chosen by the legislature. The constitution says (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2): > Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. If the mayor of Portland chose electors for Oregon and the governor allowed that (using my state as an example here), you don't think anyone has the right to ask federal courts to answer the question of whether or not electors must be chosen by the legislature (as the constitution demands), and asking them to decertify the ones chosen by someone other than the legislature? Do you honestly, in good faith, believe that the governors changing the rules for electors is not a question that ought to be addressed by courts given what I just cited above? I agree that federal courts cannot answer questions on how states elect Senators, but electors are clearly different. I am not asking you to agree with my interpretation of the law, but rather asking you if you really believe this is not a federal issue. Can Oregon simply decide tomorrow to simply not hold elections for President tomorrow?