Legal/scotus thread

[cajunrevenge]

Ask the democrats who used alternate electors every time they lost. If you had an understanding of law you would understand why it's vague.

Since 1869 the SCOUS has said the 14th amendment section isn't self-executing.

One uses plain language the other one isn't.

You are confusing two separate issues. Alternate electors are legal when done in case of the result of a winner being overturned by the courts. All the alternate electors that specified that they were contingent on prevailing in lawsuits that change the outcome have not been charged. Those that claimed to be the legal electors with no qualification have been charged. Maybe you can point out to me which Democrats sent in a elector certification without the qualification. What you are probably referring to are faithless electors who are not alternate electors, they were the electors chosen. In most cases they are legally bound to vote for whoever won the vote in that state. It never really been an issue because its usually a symbolic vote for someone with not even running and its never had the backing of the losing candidate. I will remind you that there were more Hillary electors who issued votes for someone else than there were Trump electors who were faithless. The other issue is the VP only having the right to count the legal electoral votes. Only the courts have the power to change who the legal elector votes are.

[cajunrevenge]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...paign-lawyers/


Supreme Court declines to undo sanctions against lawyers who filed frivolous election lawsuits in Michigan.

[Garmel]