Electoral College Procedures & Contested Scenarios

[PlatinumGuy]

From the Texas SCOTUS case:

https://twitter.com/ilenej/status/1336332419935338505?s=21

[PlatinumGuy]

Actually spelling out they are only suing because Biden won, and their case wouldn’t exist if a similar voting & counting procedure would result in a Trump win

https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1336366006374072322?s=21

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/akivamcohen/status/1336332574906490882?s=21

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/scpresto/status/1336493281857966083?s=21

What an unbelievable disgrace to this country.

[zh cohen]

Actually spelling out they are only suing because Biden won, and their case wouldn’t exist if a similar voting & counting procedure would result in a Trump win

https://twitter.com/ncallaway/status/1336366006374072322?s=21

Is the page number in the tweet wrong? Because that page doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

ETA: Even if they would write what you claim they wrote, I'm not seeing what you are getting worked up about. Given that these changes benefited Biden, if Trump wins in spite of the unlawful changes then no-one has standing to challenge the changes because no one has been harmed by them.

[zh cohen]

https://twitter.com/akivamcohen/status/1336332574906490882?s=21

Can't see his screenshot, but they refer to Article 2 Clause 2 which reads

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

[PlatinumGuy]

Can't see his screenshot, but they refer to Article 2 Clause 2 which reads

Nope, they specifically cite Article 1, besides for Article 2. It's as unbelievable as that.

[zh cohen]

Nope, they specifically cite Article 1, besides for Article 2. It's as unbelievable as that.

Not sure where you are reading (and I haven't finished the whole thing), but in the section where they lay out the Electors Clause claim they write

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section
1, Clause 2, of the Constitution makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to
determine the rules for appointing presidential
electors. The pertinent rules here are the state
election statutes, specifically those relevant to the
presidential election.

[PlatinumGuy]

Not sure where you are reading (and I haven't finished the whole thing), but in the section where they lay out the Electors Clause claim they write

Page 7 paragraph 13

By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Texas-v.-Pennsylvania-et-al.-US-Supreme-Court-Motion-To-File-Bill-of-Complaint.pdf

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336441097179029505?s=21

Granted, I think when multiples States appeal to a court, they’re obliged to hear it regardless of the merits.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1336668083822473221?s=21

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1336800503720783873?s=21

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1336782313724596224?s=21

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1336782313724596224?s=21

Who is this guy?

As a total side point, in the imaginary world where there is tons of evidence of fraud all over the place, who is the one destroying trust in elections and destroying democracy? The ones who committed the fraud or the ones who exposed it?

[PlatinumGuy]

Who is this guy?

Don't know, but the pictures are from the Texas v PA SCOTUS case

As a total side point, in the imaginary world where there is tons of evidence of fraud all over the place, who is the one destroying trust in elections and destroying democracy? The ones who committed the fraud or the ones who exposed it?

I don't understand your point. In the imaginary world the ones committing the fraud are the villains, but those in the real world promoting that imaginary world are in reality destroying trust and democracy by doing so.

[aygart]

Don't know, but the pictures are from the Texas v PA SCOTUS case
I don't understand your point. In the imaginary world the ones committing the fraud are the villains, but those in the real world promoting that imaginary world are in reality destroying trust and democracy by doing so.

You've been quoting from him quite a bit IIRC.

Just keep in mind how those living in this imaginary world are viewing things.

[PlatinumGuy]

You've been quoting from him quite a bit IIRC.

I know it's unusual these days but I judge content on it's merits and trust nearly nobody, so the identity of the poster doesn't really matter to me.

 

Just keep in mind how those living in this imaginary world are viewing things.

Yes but elected officials are to be blamed for living in an imaginary world and thus damaging the Republic.

[aygart]

I know it's unusual these days but I judge content on it's merits and trust nearly nobody, so the identity of the poster doesn't really matter to me.

 Yes but elected officials are to be blamed for living in an imaginary world and thus damaging the Republic.

Yes that is true, but this imaginary world is barely if at all more damaging than the imaginary world that those who spent the last 4 years busy with collusion and impeachment were living in. So many of those complaining now were the loudest proponents of that imaginary world and have little credibility. Bundle that imaginary world as the incentive to commit fraud and all is ripe for the other side's imagination to get active.

[PlatinumGuy]

Yes that is true, but this imaginary world is barely if at all more damaging than the imaginary world that those who spent the last 4 years busy with collusion and impeachment were living in. So many of those complaining now were the loudest proponents of that imaginary world and have little credibility. Bundle that imaginary world as the incentive to commit fraud and all is ripe for the other side's imagination to get active.

I don't think impeachment and declaring a US election to be invalid are even remotely comparable, but you'll just accuse me of bias. At least you didn't make the rookie mistake of calling it the Russian Hoax, when the Republican appointed prosecutors found conclusive evidence that Russia did in fact interfere in the 2016 elections Trump's favor, and people are sitting in jail for that. And no, the impeachment had nothing to do with unproven collusion, it was for obstruction of justice and abuse of power, which Muller all but accused Trump of himself.

[aygart]

I don't think impeachment and declaring a US election to be invalid are even remotely comparable, but you'll just accuse me of bias. At least you didn't make the rookie mistake of calling it the Russian Hoax, when the Republican appointed prosecutors found conclusive evidence that Russia did in fact interfere in the 2016 elections Trump's favor, and people are sitting in jail for that. And no, the impeachment had nothing to do with unproven collusion, it was for obstruction of justice and abuse of power, which Muller all but accused Trump of himself.

Both are to overturn the results of an election. What you are seeing from prosecutors and Muller are all in your imaginary world.