10th District Court of Appeals Electoral College decision.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by 61falcon, Aug 21, 2019.

  1. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The 10th District Court of Appeals just handed down a very important decision regarding electoral college members and how they vote.What they have basically decided is when we vote in November 2020 we are not really voting for the President and Vice President of our choice we are voting for a slate of representative who make up the electoral college who will vote for our President and Vice president to be.These representatives CANNOT be forced to vote along party lines, as they have in the past, resulting in removal if they failed to vote as the state went.The court ruled that they can vote as they please which is in total opposition to how the Washington state Supreme Court recently ruled,meaning this topic will probably wind up in front of the U.S.Supreme court for them to decide.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  2. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one interested in this major court decision regarding the electoral college who elect our president and vice president.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nah, as long as president Trump stacked the courts with constitution following judges we should be good for a while . Thank You Mr. President!!!! So glad he clobbered that old crooked hag , had she won the whole world would be concerned.
     
  4. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think we need to remove the direct vote for President and let the Electors decide the President and Vice President these Electors appointed by the States I suggest at the county level in districts of like minded people. They can then make a list and choose the best options from all political parties and non-party people that want the job.
     
  5. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the EC had to follow the popular vote, Trump wouldn't have won.

    Clinton won the popular vote in several of the states where Trump won the EC.

    The truth is that in many states, the party controlling the legislature rigs the EC delegation by planting a bunch of party insiders in the spots, and these insiders will just vote with the party, instead of the popular vote. If this ruling is upheld, it means that state legislatures can no longer rig the system in this way.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Baca launched the Hamilton Electors with a fellow elector from Washington state, Bret Chiafalo, after reading Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 68. In it, Hamilton lays out his vision for the purpose of the electoral college: a buffer to protect against populism.

    The founders were skeptical of direct democracy, fearing it was too vulnerable to electing candidates who knew how to please a crowd but lacked the credentials required for office. The electoral college process, Hamilton wrote, “affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
    https://beta.washingtonpost.com/nat...ge-court-says-his-faithless-ballot-was-legal/

    It was prescient of Hamilton to set up a system by which it was more difficult for an unqualified buffoon like Trump to be elected. Unfortunately, it failed to protect us from the Orange Turd.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  7. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some judges lean left and some lean right which is the way it should be. The problem is not so much the judges as it is the ability to shop around for a judge who they think will be favorable to their case.
     
  8. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you folks ever bother to actually read the law? It's like this decision seems monumental, and yet, it's been the way the electoral college has worked since it's inception.

    Thank all that is holy that the pantsuit didn't win, and we still enjoy liberty in this nation.

    Oh, and there are at least two other threads on the same topic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
  9. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,902
    Likes Received:
    5,680
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's been plenty of instances in the past where electors didn't vote for who won the popular vote in their state. In fact in 2016 4 electors didn't. The final count was Trump 304, Clinton 228, others 4. When an elector doesn't vote for who won the state, they are known as a faithless elector. Here is the history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

    This ruling doesn't mean much except in a few states that would disqualify an elector if he deviates from whomever won the state's popular vote. For most states, it means nothing.
     
  10. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope.

    "Now, for apparently the first time, a federal appeals court has upheld the right of so-called “faithless electors” to vote with their conscience — a ruling that “throws into question” states’ winner-take-all election systems that bind electors to vote for the state’s popular vote winner, attorneys on Baca’s case said. In a 125-page split opinion Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado’s decision to nullify Baca’s vote and remove him as an elector was unconstitutional."
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  11. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    7,870
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not news. Some states allow faithless electors, some replace them. Socialists harassed electors won by Trump in 2016 to get them to vote against the people in their state.

    I think Democrats should tell blue states to suspend elections and have their electors vote the way CA, NY, and IL vote. It will save everyone alot of time, cut down election day travel thereby saving the planet.
     
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Umm.. ok, so you don't read. And neither did the retread that wrote your submission. The decision addresses the legality of the tyranny of the then democrats in CO. Nothing more, and it affirms that the said tyranny of democrats in CO was unjust, which is why it was struck down. Try again.
     
  13. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Baca and Chiafalo thought the 2016 election was the time to return to Hamilton’s vision. Baca viewed Trump as “dangerous” and a “threat to our democracy,” he told The Washington Post.

    “We’re trying to be that ‘break in case of emergency’ fire hose that’s gotten dusty over the last 200 years,” Chiafalo told the Atlantic in November 2016. “This is an emergency.”

    Wow, they were so right. Those guys are true patriots.
     
  14. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do so enjoy seeing you double down when you're wrong. Which happens a lot.

    "Baca’s attorney, Jason Wesoky, said the ruling essentially makes laws that require electors to vote for the state’s winner unenforceable in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico. He said the legal team, with attorneys from the group Equal Citizens, is seeking review from the Supreme Court before the 2020 election."
     
  15. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny. Of course the lawyer would say that. doesn't make him right, either. Why do you suppose that you're so misinformed that you could be so easily duped here?
     
  16. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't get it..can I get the for dummies version?
     
  17. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On August 20, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit voted 2-1 in favor of the appellants, finding that removal of an elector for voting for someone other than the winner of the statewide popular vote was unconstitutional under the 12th amendment.

    Maybe you should actually read the opinion.
     
  18. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Big difference is the court has ruled that members of the college are free to vote whatever way they want and cannot just be replaced by a states political party.
     
  19. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,536
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper.

    In the majority’s ruling on Tuesday, the 10th Circuit ruled that the U.S. Constitution contains no language that allows a state to remove an elector or toss out his or her vote.

    “Constitutional provisions grant states the plenary power to appoint its electors. But once that appointment process is concluded, the Constitution identifies no further involvement by the states in the selection of the President and Vice President,” Judge Carolyn Baldwin McHugh wrote in the majority opinion. “Even where an elector violates a state-required pledge to vote for the winners of the state popular election, there is nothing in the federal Constitution that allows the state to remove that elector or to nullify his votes.”
    https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...have-to-vote-for-winner-of-state-popular-vote
     
  20. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No,it won't stand. Read the Constitution.
     
  21. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If it did nothing else at least it would force a states political party to be much more selective on who they appoint to be their electoral college representatives.
     
  22. God & Country

    God & Country Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    2,837
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To what end?
     
  23. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To the end that if they want them to vote as THEY desire then they better be damned sure of those they pick.
     
  24. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. He won either way.

    Just because an extra million leftists in CA voted for Clinton, that doesn't change the EC vote in another state.
     
    PrincipleInvestment likes this.
  25. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    He's actually correct. Electors always had the freedom to vote the way they want.

    Clinton actually lost 3 electors during 2016. Meaning, 3 electors who were supposed to vote for Clinton, didn't vote for Clinton.
     
    drluggit likes this.

Share This Page