5 ms·

Alternate headline... "56% of Americans are dillusional"

TruthIsHeresy 4y ago
I wonder what percentage of Americans don’t know how to spell “delusional.”
FireBeyond 4y ago
What is delusional? The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that says that states have zero requirement to follow their citizens wishes and that the ruling legislators can cast that states electoral votes any way they want, without any consequence. Minority Republican (or Democrat) Governor in a state that votes (even overwhelmingly) Democrat (or Republican)? Eh, no matter. "My state is giving all our votes to the Republican (or Democrat) candidate in the Electoral College." And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so. > The Elections Clause delegates to states the power to regulate federal elections while giving Congress the overriding authority to make or alter such laws. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory — like the gerrymanderers — read the Elections Clause to give state legislators near-exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, prohibiting any other state entity — like state courts or governors — from placing checks and balances on that power. In this case, the gerrymanderers are arguing that the theory licenses them to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them. The immediate issue in Moore is whether the state legislators’ extreme partisan gerrymander will stand in North Carolina. But adopting the independent state legislature theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy — in state court or in federal court — to fight partisan gerrymandering. The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections. The current Supreme Court has also stated, in explicit and specific terms ("erroneous decisions in need of correction"), that if given a case on gay marriage, it will remove that as a right, that if given a case banning birth control in a state, it will allow that, and that basic privacy concerns are null and moot. Tell me more about that delusion.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  Isn't this an assumption of the "popular vote compact" that has been enacted in some of the leftist states? They would send their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote without regard to what the people in the state voted. The legality of this compact requires that states be able to override the wishes of their population in any given vote and assign electors based on other criteria.
  - Syonyk 4y ago
    "States rights for my pet causes, not for thine!" is one of the remarkably consistent principles one finds in US politics. Annoyingly. We'd be a lot better off if things were put back to the states.
    - nullish_signal 4y ago
      Electoral Votes serve State Sovereignty, as designed. The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        One of these rulings would state that the state could gerrymander as it liked, and that there is no body that is allowed oversight, no remedies that can be sought. For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state. Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    So is the other extreme more palatable to you? That the legislature can gerrymander however it so wishes, and state that there is -zero- avenue of appeal in any setting?

I wonder what percentage of Americans don’t know how to spell “delusional.”

What is delusional? The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that says that states have zero requirement to follow their citizens wishes and that the ruling legislators can cast that states electoral votes any way they want, without any consequence. Minority Republican (or Democrat) Governor in a state that votes (even overwhelmingly) Democrat (or Republican)? Eh, no matter. "My state is giving all our votes to the Republican (or Democrat) candidate in the Electoral College." And the current Supreme Court has all but telegraphed that it will rule in favor of the state, saying that that Governor is perfectly allowed to do so. > The Elections Clause delegates to states the power to regulate federal elections while giving Congress the overriding authority to make or alter such laws. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory — like the gerrymanderers — read the Elections Clause to give state legislators near-exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, prohibiting any other state entity — like state courts or governors — from placing checks and balances on that power. In this case, the gerrymanderers are arguing that the theory licenses them to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them. The immediate issue in Moore is whether the state legislators’ extreme partisan gerrymander will stand in North Carolina. But adopting the independent state legislature theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy — in state court or in federal court — to fight partisan gerrymandering. The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections. The current Supreme Court has also stated, in explicit and specific terms ("erroneous decisions in need of correction"), that if given a case on gay marriage, it will remove that as a right, that if given a case banning birth control in a state, it will allow that, and that basic privacy concerns are null and moot. Tell me more about that delusion.

rsj_hn 4y ago
Isn't this an assumption of the "popular vote compact" that has been enacted in some of the leftist states? They would send their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote without regard to what the people in the state voted. The legality of this compact requires that states be able to override the wishes of their population in any given vote and assign electors based on other criteria.
- Syonyk 4y ago
  "States rights for my pet causes, not for thine!" is one of the remarkably consistent principles one finds in US politics. Annoyingly. We'd be a lot better off if things were put back to the states.
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    Electoral Votes serve State Sovereignty, as designed. The Electoral Compacts REMOVE states rights, Liberal States disregard their Citizens' Electoral Votes.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      One of these rulings would state that the state could gerrymander as it liked, and that there is no body that is allowed oversight, no remedies that can be sought. For a "ridiculous" but perfectly legal example in this case, NC could create an electoral district that comprised the governor's home, and his brother's, who lives next door. And say that that is the entirety of the electoral district, and that that district's voting will determine the votes of the Electoral College for that state. Try to spin that as being designed behavior.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  So is the other extreme more palatable to you? That the legislature can gerrymander however it so wishes, and state that there is -zero- avenue of appeal in any setting?