╌>

The Trump campaign is reportedly 'discussing contingency plans to bypass election results'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  4 years ago  •  166 comments

By:   Brendan Morrow, The Week

The Trump campaign is reportedly 'discussing contingency plans to bypass election results'

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Politics

The Trump campaign is reportedly 'discussing contingency plans to bypass election results'





Brendan Morrow


06422c50-e164-11e9-bfbd-cdb74fdcbf3a Wed, September 23, 2020, 11:31 AM EDT








bf6d9c08efdf7e908dcb18f8b5edada8


President Trump's campaign is discussing "contingency plans" that would involve bypassing the result of November's election, reports   The Atlantic .

The report delves into possible scenarios if Trump apparently loses the 2020 presidential election but doesn't concede, noting that although we're used to electors being selected based on the popular vote, "nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way." Citing Republican Party sources,   The Atlantic   says that Trump's campaign is "discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

The campaign would reportedly assert that this step was necessary due to claims of supposed voter fraud, which experts have noted is extraordinarily rare, ahead of the "safe harbor" deadline to appoint 538 electors on Dec. 8.

"Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly,"   The Atlantic   reports. "The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."




A Trump campaign legal adviser who spoke to   The Atlantic   said that in this scenario, "the state legislatures will say, 'All right, we've been given this constitutional power. We don't think the results of our own state are accurate, so here's our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state." Lawrence Tabas, chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, also told   The Atlantic   he has discussed the direct appointment of electors with the Trump campaign, saying, "I've mentioned it to them, and I hope they're thinking about it too." The Trump campaign said it is "fighting for a free and fair election."

This potential scenario is just one part of the broader piece in which experts warn "conditions are ripe for a constitutional crisis." Read   more at   The Atlantic .





Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    4 years ago

trumpturd knows he's losing.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    4 years ago
The Trump campaign said it is "fighting for a free and fair election."

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

The Trout is giggling so hard she's gonna throw herself on the riverbank

 
 
 
Account Deleted
Freshman Silent
3.1  Account Deleted  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    4 years ago

Control yourself - serious meditation is needed.

Consider the sound of one tiny, tiny little Trump hand clapping in the middle of a Siberian forest... Ommmmmmmmmmmm...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Account Deleted @3.1    4 years ago

Ok....I'm done. Time to go eat some flies

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    4 years ago

I almost swallowed my gum reading that bs statement.  Telling people to vote twice is not playing fair.  Letting his toadie PMG dismantle sorting machines and having mail boxes removed to slow up the mail is not playing fair.  Threatening to send in the police and military to intimidate voters is not playing fair.  Trump would not know fair if it bit him on his big ass.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2    4 years ago

I gotta tell you I didn't hear him tell people to vote twice. It's a good thing, too, because I think my head would have exploded

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
3.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.1    4 years ago

There is video of it on You Tube.  I will let you find it if you wish because I don't want your head to explode here.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.3  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.1    4 years ago

Donald Trump tells supporters to vote twice - by mail and in person

Trout and Paula, here you go. Trout, don't you let this ignoramus 'hurt' your mind. Just vote, vote early, and vote meticulously as a form of 'repair' for having watched this video. And thank (God!) for Youtube. What a 'life-saver' it is!

Note how easily this ignoramus projects onto democrats his stupe! Trump republicans have no shame. No shame. They are Trump (brand).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @3.2.3    4 years ago

Did you hear that noise?

There is gray matter leaking out of my ears...my brain exploded

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.5  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.4    4 years ago

I caught just a hint of something. It cause me to swiftly turn and look. My dear, please: "Are you okay?!!"

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @3.2.5    4 years ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Yeah. I cleaned my ears. Everything's cool

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.7  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.6    4 years ago

Oh good. So there you have it, ignoramus is doing that thing he does yet again. Laying it all out there so people can acclimate to it. It's called, "gumming up the works!" and then come alongside and ask: "How did this happen?" "Let's ask (my) the newly installed federal judges and supremes to  'fix' it!"

Donald has been pulling these stunts as long as he's been in skin. Wake up, Liberals! Donald and his enablers are going to "do you" if you don't get up and get after it! This time he will "do you" with your eyes open if you don't push him off of you!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4  Buzz of the Orient    4 years ago

With apologies to Guys and Dolls, sing to the melody of 'Follow the Fold'.

Follow the fold and stray no more
Stray no more, stray no more
Follow O'Donnell and we'll say no more
Follow, follow
Obey the words so wrong and hollow

Follow the fold and stray no more
Stray no more, stray no more
You must blame China and say no more
Follow, follow, the fold

Screw the voters, where truth shines
Enter the darkness and the cold
And the pain and shame in which you wallow

Follow the fold and stray no more
Stray no more, stray no more
If you're a Trumpster then you think no more
Follow, follow, the fold

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6  Buzz of the Orient    4 years ago

If Trump and his disciples consider doing that, then there is justification in the Democrats considering impeachment and packing the SCOTUS.  If Trump succeeds with this plan, then America is no longer a democracy, a voting Republic, or whatever, it is a dictatorship of the minority, and even mimics communism.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    4 years ago
If Trump succeeds with this plan, then America is no longer a democracy, a voting Republic, or whatever, it is a dictatorship of the minority, and even mimics communism.

You should probably familiarize yourself with the Constitution before offering uninformed opinions. 

Here's it how works. A vacancy opens. The President nominates a replacement. The Senate confirms, or doesn't. Which part is giving you trouble? 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    4 years ago

My comment wasn't clear enough.  My statement about not being a democracy was not with respect to appointing a judge as I have already been made aware here what the Constitution says about it, it was with respect to the topic of this seed, the ignoring of the people's vote and appointing Trump supporting electors.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
6.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    4 years ago
Here's it how works. A vacancy opens. The President nominates a replacement. The Senate confirms, or doesn't

So your explanation to what happened to the Garland nomination would be....?  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    4 years ago

LOL.. No reply to what I actually meant, rather than what was misinterpreted.  Figures. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.2    4 years ago

The Senate didn’t confirm.  It’s happened plenty of times before, and will probably happen again.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
6.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.4    4 years ago

There was no confirmation hearing.... no vote.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6.2.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.2    4 years ago

I just hope they stall the nomination just like they did with Obama's choice.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.6    4 years ago

you might change your hope to wishing Trump's pick isn't confirmed

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    4 years ago

There is so much shit hitting the fan they're having issues addressing them individually. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.2.1    4 years ago

I understood what you meant.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.2.2    4 years ago
So your explanation to what happened to the Garland nomination would be....?  

OO! OO! Pick me! I know the answer!

This is how they will explain it. It's actually a good answer, but it still won't explain the hypocrisy.

Obama was a lame duck even tho he made that nomination several months before the election. Our current POUTUS is up for re-election, no lame duck status, therefore they believe he has the right...no...not just the right!...but a DUTY! to appoint the next justice. Besides, they think the asshole is going to win. They're counting on it.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.2.11  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.10    4 years ago

Turtles are known to be damn liars.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @6.2.11    4 years ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Now...now...that's not fair. The cute little box turtles in my flower beds never lie. Of course, I don't understand what they're saying....

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.13  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.10    4 years ago
.but a DUTY! to appoint the next justice.
True....a Constitutional duty to do so as soon as possible.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.13    4 years ago

I knew I could speak for the right wingers. I'm not as dumb as some people think

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.15  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2    4 years ago

The part where there is open rancor between the senate; the staunchest branch of the congress! It is the reason for the granting of six year terms. Trump supporters support it being a den of thieves politically. Shame. It was once worth its salt. Now, it is a combat zone with senators figuratively pissing in the corners and spitting on the seats. The intrigue in that place is shamefully ridiculous. All that is left is for all out fisticuffs and chairs broken across each others heads. It's coming. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.16  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.12    4 years ago

You have nature in your yard? What is that like? "Friends" or pests?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.2.17  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @6.2.11    4 years ago

And here I thought that turtle could provide good health and long life.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @6.2.16    4 years ago

The only ones I consider pests are the raccoons. But I have deer, fox, possum, armadillos, squirrels, lots of different kinds of birds, even hummingbirds, and coyotes

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.19  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.18    4 years ago

We have (had) racoons. They "latrined" on the roof of my home, and I had to pay someone to come clean it up!  Then, a good friend gardener and myself trapped one (by accident). That is, we did not tell that rascal to put its butt in his yard. . . in his trap! Anyway, we had to let it go (back over the fence) by law or pay out of his nose for removal services!

We do have a few squirrels, hummingbirds. Coyotes on a hillside across town thank you very much. And gratefully no snakes that travel this far. Although, we do have creek nearby. Hmmm. Anyway, no snakes! Can't stand that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.20  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.13    4 years ago

"True....a Constitutional duty to do so as soon as possible."

Nope.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
6.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    4 years ago

If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS and the Senate by making Puerto Rico and DC states then America is no longer a democracy, a voting Republic, or whatever, it is a one-party dictatorship mimicking communism. That's the Democrats dream.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MonsterMash @6.3    4 years ago

Do you actually believe that would be the result?  

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
6.3.2  MonsterMash  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.3.1    4 years ago

You bet I do.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
6.3.3  pat wilson  replied to  MonsterMash @6.3    4 years ago

If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS

The Democrats are not in charge. Last time I checked.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
6.3.4  MonsterMash  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.3    4 years ago
The Democrats are not in charge. Last time I checked.

Check again after the election or wait and check on 20 January, 2021

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.3.5  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @6.3    4 years ago
If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS and the Senate by making Puerto Rico and DC states

And how would they be able to do that exactly? 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
6.3.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MonsterMash @6.3    4 years ago
That's the Democrats dream.

You are grossly mistaken.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6.3.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.3    4 years ago

That I hope changes in January.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.3.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MonsterMash @6.3    4 years ago
it is a one-party dictatorship mimicking communism

Ah yes, whiny right wing projection at its best.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.3.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.8    4 years ago

If Democrats don't gain control we will be heading for a one-party dictatorship mimicking fascism 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7  bbl-1    4 years ago

This must all be a feint---Trump's real contingency plan is how he can pull off a skedaddle to a safe harbor before those 31 sealed indictments are shoved down his whiney throat.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @7    4 years ago

A secret tunnel under the White House to Marine One where it flies to Andrews where it takes him some place with no extradition treaty. I hear Venezuela is nice in November

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1    4 years ago

Except the crew of Marine One have abandoned their posts.  lol

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.1    4 years ago

Maybe Donny Jr can fly it

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
8  The Magic 8 Ball    4 years ago

"reportedly" 

  that is too funny :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @8    4 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9  TᵢG    4 years ago

No way on the planet would rational human beings predominantly conclude that Trump could bypass the election results and remain PotUS.    To think that is possible in modern day USA is beyond ridiculous.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
9.1  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @9    4 years ago

Who said he would try?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
9.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MonsterMash @9.1    4 years ago

Trump is......  Keep up.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @9.1.1    4 years ago

You have a link to that? I have already debunked the "there won't be a transfer frankly" cherry pick as Trump not thinking about a peaceful transfer because as with all candidates, you don't admit to defeat prior to even being elected. Prior to that statement, he also said "We'll have to see what happens". In other words, let's see how the election shakes out and then we can talk peaceful transition of power.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.2    4 years ago

Links shminks  . . . . 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @9.1    4 years ago

I am commenting on the hypothetical posed by this seed.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
9.1.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.2    4 years ago

Trump's loosing and he knows it......  A looser will only bitch about the rules (like counting votes) to make excuses. 

So simple question Jim.... You want to live in a representative democracy, or are you voting to transform America into an autocracy? 

 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @9.1.5    4 years ago

Although the question is stupid, yes, a representative republic. There is no indication, HARD justification, for even thinking we are headed in the autocracy direction..........well except in the usual Never Trump world of chicken little TDS sufferers. This should explain those type people quite well...............

384

And for further clarification, see TiG's comments on the matter (He is quite articulate in his posts and explains it better than I). IT. AIN'T. GONNA. HAPPEN  in this United States of America.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to    4 years ago

Sorry just don't see it that way. Yes, there are some rabid asses who would like, maybe (although I doubt it) like to see an autocracy, the majority of citizens aren't that stupid and don't want to even get CLOSE to that form of GovCo. Here all this time raz I didn't think you were close to even thinking that way. You have always been a level head when the world gets out of plumb. I guess people evolve but that premise is sadly chicken little based.

Peace old friend.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
9.1.11  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.7    4 years ago

Anybody that openly talks about not counting votes is an autocrat Jim.   Do you want to count people's votes?

Keep in mind, that Trump's own voter fraud commission found nothing to support "widespread 3-5 million fraudulent votes" Trump continues to claim in the 2016 election.

COUNT THE DAMN VOTES.... or we are another step down the road to a banana republic autocracy.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
9.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @9.1.11    4 years ago

But we DO want to make sure that EVERY vote cast was done by a legal citizen of the US, and that there were no fraudulent votes.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @9.1.11    4 years ago
Keep in mind, that Trump's own voter fraud commission found nothing to support "widespread 3-5 million fraudulent votes" Trump continues to claim in the 2016 election.

Made them look though didn't he.......as well as others. There may have been some loaded pants when he established the commission.

Anybody that openly talks about not counting votes is an autocrat Jim.

No, being a businessman he throws shit out there to spark thought.........and you can bet there will be plenty of emphasis and making sure everything is on the up and up with the vote. He put it, as he has several thing, front and center.

Just like his birth certificate bullshit. It raised a few eyebrows even though everyone knew Mr. Obama was born to a US citizen mother. Had there been, as some of the conspiracy nuts thought, any proof that his mother denounced her citizenship and been a Kenyan, he may have had a shot.................maybe a slingshot. LOL

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.14  CB  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.12    4 years ago

So perfection is your thing? /s

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1.15  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.13    4 years ago
even though everyone knew Mr. Obama was born to a US citizen mother.

Evidence of the massive wastes of time that Trump enablers propagate around here. They know. Some Trump supporters are just BS-ers, fakers, and shillers. Listen: Some Trump supporters know they are cheating, stealing, and lying (for Trump). It is in the 2020 Trump election strategy playbook! The masterplan is to takeover the government and never yield the majority back!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
9.1.16  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.12    4 years ago

And throwing out all the mail-in ballots as Trump suggests does what..... with respect the to disenfranchisement of legal voters Greg?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
9.1.17  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.13    4 years ago
you can bet there will be plenty of emphasis and making sure everything is on the up and up with the vote.

Riiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt...!  

Like ensuring that the US Postal service is hamstringed just prior to an election when mail-in ballots are going to be at an all time high.   

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
9.1.19  FLYNAVY1  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.18    4 years ago
Lucerne county PA.  Funny that it happened in a republican leaning county too XD.....
Nine ballots found in the trash.... 7 Trump.... 2 Biden..... All military ballots.  FBI now involved.
Yes XD..... we count ALL the ballots.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.20  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.13    4 years ago

The only loaded pants here are trumpturds' - a depends full of shit.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @9    4 years ago

What would stop him? 

Not his SCOTUS.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @9.2    4 years ago

He would need the state legislatures in states where he lost to bypass the will of the people and done in enough states to achieve an electoral victory.   This requires the cooperation of likely hundreds of presumably rational people whose political careers would be in great jeopardy.

He would then need the results to be confirmed by Congress.  Congress can object to the results on cause and can exclude electoral votes.

No way this would happen in today's USA unless we are dealing with an extremely close election and a single state and even then I do not see this passing Congress.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.2  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.1    4 years ago
He would need the state legislatures in states where he lost to bypass the will of the people and done in enough states to achieve an electoral victory.   This requires the cooperation of likely hundreds of presumably rational people whose political careers would be in great jeopardy.

The truncated Yahoo version of the Atlantic article doesn't do it justice. It goes into how that scenario would work and what would motivate the GOP legislators to do what Trump asks. 

He would then need the results to be confirmed by Congress.  Congress can object to the results on cause and can exclude electoral votes.

Yet that takes BOTH Houses of Congress and I have no doubt of the sycophancy of the Senate to Trump. Remember, the President of the Senate is Pence. 

No way this would happen in today's USA unless we are dealing with an extremely close election and a single state and even then I do not see this passing Congress.

I really don't see where your confidence in Congress is coming from. The Senate has proven that they will do and say anything to defend and support Trump. The GOP's platform is merely a full throated endorsement of Trump. They're all in, country be damned. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @9.2.2    4 years ago
It goes into how that scenario would work and what would motivate the GOP legislators to do what Trump asks. 

What then do you wish to add to show how the GOP state legislators would be willing to compromise their political careers by directly violating the will of the people in their state?

Yet that takes BOTH Houses of Congress and I have no doubt of the sycophancy of the Senate to Trump. Remember, the President of the Senate is Pence. 

Yes, BOTH the House and Senate are indeed involved.   So if the Senate were to turn a blind eye to this (which, again, is unlikely), the House clearly would never allow it.

I really don't see where your confidence in Congress is coming from. The Senate has proven that they will do and say anything to defend and support Trump. The GOP's platform is merely a full throated endorsement of Trump. They're all in, country be damned. 

I frankly cannot imagine why you think this scheme has any chance at all.   Even if the Senate ignored the overt attempt to violate the will of the people and essentially overturn the results of an election (knowing full well their own reelection fate from that) the House would never allow this.   The D party would be all over this with lawsuits, etc.    And if any of this activity made its way to the SCotUS, the conservative majority does not mean a majority of justices would simply rule in favor of Trump.   That presumes all the conservative justices are pure partisans with no constitutional / legal ethics.   That is simply not true.


And the MSM will be all over this from the onset putting immense pressure on the agents engaging in this scheme by informing the public of every detail.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.4  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.3    4 years ago
What then do you wish to add to show how the GOP state legislators would be willing to compromise their political careers by directly violating the will of the people in their state?

I thought I made that clear by pointing you to the full Atlantic article. It says it better than I ever could. 

Yes, BOTH the House and Senate are indeed involved.   So if the Senate were to turn a blind eye to this (which, again, is unlikely), the House clearly would never allow it. I frankly cannot imagine why you think this scheme has any chance at all.   Even if the Senate ignored the overt attempt to violate the will of the people and essentially overturn the results of an election (knowing full well their own reelection fate from that) the House would never allow this.

BOTH the House and the Senate must CONCUR to reject electoral votes, which means that the House can't stop it on their own. 

The D party would be all over this with lawsuits, etc.    And if any of this activity made its way to the SCotUS, the conservative majority does not mean a majority of justices would simply rule in favor of Trump.   That presumes all the conservative justices are pure partisans with no constitutional / legal ethics.   That is simply not true.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue in both McPherson and Bush v Gore which states: "State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself"

And the MSM will be all over this from the onset putting immense pressure on the agents engaging in this scheme by informing the public of every detail.

Which would matter if there was even one iota of evidence that those 'agents' give a shit. I see little to no evidence that they do. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @9.2.4    4 years ago
I thought I made that clear by pointing you to the full Atlantic article. It says it better than I ever could.

And I asked you to summarize your impression of the article so that I did not have to try to guess what part(s) you found which explain why state legislators would risk their own political futures by violating the will of the people in their state.    I am thus guessing this is what you found to be significant:

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

Is it your position that the state legislators would use the excuse that the election results are bogus or undecided as they reason they usurp letting the people decide the electoral votes for the state?   If so, I do not see this happening.   But, again, I do not know what you found convincing ...

BOTH the House and the Senate must CONCUR to reject electoral votes, which means that the House can't stop it on their own. 

Correct, but BOTH the House and the Senate are part of the deciding body and can raise and vote on objections.   If the Senate rejects the objection and the House supports it, it will fail, but the disagreement between the two bodies of Congress will be profound.   The House's support of an objection serves as a foundation for all remedial measures including lawsuits.   The disagreement will be all over the MSM, et.al. and in a case like this, the American people will almost certainly be quite engaged and informed.   Senators know this.   They know that allowing a state legislature to violate the will of the people will not be popular with the people and thus each of them are compromising their own political careers due to a highly visible exposure that I am confident the American people will find appalling.

Net: 

  • The R state legislators violating the will of the people put their own political careers at risk.
  • The R federal senators being complicit with this scheme put their own political careers at risk.
  • House and Senate disagreeing on an objection to a scheme to steal the Presidency is a foundation for myriad remedial measures that will publicly haunt the Senators (and they know this).

Not going to happen.   As I noted, this takes the cooperation of far too many people who are willing to compromise their political careers for Donald Trump.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue in both McPherson and Bush v Gore which states: "State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself"

The fact that a State legislature can constitutionally usurp the will of the people is not in question.   If this hypothetical were unconstitutional it would have never been proffered.  

My comment was that I disagree with your assertion that any lawsuit that makes its way to the SCotUS would be treated in a partisan manner by the SCotUS simply because the court has a conservative ideology majority.    The justices on the SCotUS are not everyday political partisans and will very likely not compromise their integrity simply to allow a Trump scheme to steal the presidency.   Questions do not get more visible or important than this.   I do not see that happening.

Which would matter if there was even one iota of evidence that those 'agents' give a shit. I see little to no evidence that they do. 

In contrast, I see no evidence that the many agents who must be complicit in this scheme would actually do so.   I have, in this thread, detailed why I think they would not be willing to risk their political careers to support a highly visible and controversial scheme by Trump to steal the presidency.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.6  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.5    4 years ago
And I asked you to summarize your impression of the article so that I did not have to try to guess what part(s) you found which explain why state legislators would risk their own political futures by violating the will of the people in their state.   

And I pointed you to the Atlantic article and stated that it said it better than I ever could. Is there a reason why you are guessing rather than reading it?

I am thus guessing this is what you found to be significant:
Is it your position that the state legislators would use the excuse that the election results are bogus or undecided as they reason they usurp letting the people decide the electoral votes for the state?   If so, I do not see this happening.   But, again, I do not know what you found convincing ...

Why not this part of the truncated article:

A Trump campaign legal adviser who spoke to The Atlantic said that in this scenario, "the state legislatures will say, 'All right, we've been given this constitutional power. We don't think the results of our own state are accurate, so here's our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state." Lawrence Tabas, chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party , also told The Atlantic he has discussed the direct appointment of electors with the Trump campaign, saying, "I've mentioned it to them, and I hope they're thinking about it too." The Trump campaign said it is "fighting for a free and fair election." This potential scenario is just one part of the broader piece in which experts warn "conditions are ripe for a constitutional crisis." Read    more at The Atlantic .

I've pointed out the highlighted part elsewhere. You may also want to use the links to the Atlantic. 

My comment was that I disagree with your assertion that any lawsuit that makes its way to the SCotUS would be treated in a partisan manner by the SCotUS simply because the court has a conservative ideology majority.   

You did so by including this:

That presumes all the conservative justices are pure partisans with no constitutional / legal ethics. 

My comment pointed out the fact that the SCOTUS had ALREADY ruled on that Constitutional question and therefore could easily point to those cases to support their ruling for Trump. 

In contrast, I see no evidence that the many agents who must be complicit in this scheme would actually do so.   I have, in this thread, detailed why I think they would not be willing to risk their political careers to support a highly visible and controversial scheme by Trump to steal the presidency.

How 'many' would alarm you? 

I would think that the fact that the chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party is on record should be a GIANT red flag. The history of the Republican legislature in Wisconsin leads me to believe that they would be all in too.

That's 30 electoral votes from Biden to Trump.

Those 30 electoral votes could represent over 2 MILLION disenfranchised voters. 

BTW, GOP legislatures have done everything in their power to fight mask mandates and just about anything else that Governors have tried to do to mitigate the spread of the virus [see Wisconsin]. If their constituents don't care about that, I doubt they'll care about much else they do. 

  
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @9.2.6    4 years ago
And I pointed you to the Atlantic article and stated that it said it better than I ever could. Is there a reason why you are guessing rather than reading it?

In the comment to which you are replying, I quoted a passage from deep within the article .   Why would you think I did not read the article??   

The guesswork is that I do not know which parts of the article you found to be persuasive reasons as to why a state legislator would compromise their political futures to support a scheme to keep Trump in office.

Why not this part of the truncated article:

This is why I asked you to state your summary position.   You are the only person who can determine what parts of an article were most persuasive to you regarding the question on the table.    Neither of us would want me to presume your position.

That established, I will comment on your quote:

A Trump campaign legal adviser who spoke to The Atlantic said that in this scenario, "the state legislatures will say, 'All right, we've been given this constitutional power. We don't think the results of our own state are accurate, so here's our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state." Lawrence Tabas, chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party , also told The Atlantic he has discussed the direct appointment of electors with the Trump campaign, saying, "I've mentioned it to them, and I hope they're thinking about it too." The Trump campaign said it is "fighting for a free and fair election." This potential scenario is just one part of the broader piece in which experts warn "conditions are ripe for a constitutional crisis." Read    more at The Atlantic .

As for that part that you put in boldface , I have no idea how this would convince you that the state legislators would compromise their political careers for Trump.   However, look at the sentence I marked in blue .   I could see that influencing you since at least it speaks of the legislators and offers a reason.   The reason offered is that the legislators find that the state results are corrupt and are taking corrective action.

Assuming you find that persuasive, my comment is this.   If the legislators did indeed discover that the election results were corrupt then I would support their corrective action and I think they would garner support from their constituents.    Now, note, this is not the case of the hypothetical.   The hypothetical is that this is part of a scheme .   So it would not be the case of a voting process failure that requires corrective action.   It would be a case of fraud and the legislators would be complicit in fraud.   I just do not see how you would be persuaded to think they would knowingly engage in this scheme given the likelihood that it will be exposed and their political careers will be compromised.

But, again, I may be off base because maybe you do not find the part in blue to be persuasive.    I do not know.

My comment pointed out the fact that the SCOTUS had ALREADY ruled on that Constitutional question and therefore could easily point to those cases to support their ruling for Trump. 

I am not sure how else to say this so I will simply repeat.   The constitutionality of a state legislator selecting its own electors has never been in question by me.   So the fact that the SCotUS ruled on that constitutional question is immaterial; it is not being contested.   Again, as I noted, if the state legislators did not have constitutional authority to select the electors then this entire hypothetical is null and void.   Summary:   yes state legislatures have the constitutional right to pick electors and the SCotUS would very likely uphold that right.   Never suggested otherwise.

Let's now close this jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png out;  it is not and never was a question in dispute.

When I spoke of the justices in the SCotUS abiding by the CotUS I was speaking in general terms about their professional integrity.   You suggested that the SCotUS is biased towards Trump.    My response to that is that I believe the justices are NOT pure partisans and value their constitutional / legal ethics.   The context of my response was explicitly your statement regarding bias.

I would think that the fact that the chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party is on record should be a GIANT red flag. The history of the Republican legislature in Wisconsin leads me to believe that they would be all in too.

The position of the PRP chair is noteworthy but it falls very short of convincing me that the members of the state legislatures would compromise their political careers for Trump.   We apparently have very different bars here.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.5    4 years ago
The justices on the SCotUS are not everyday political partisans and will very likely not compromise their integrity simply to allow a Trump scheme to steal the presidency.

I wish to make two points and admittedly I have not fully read the long version for its completeness. I have listened to the discussion laid out from last evening and Morning Joe through some of the MSNBC shows so far.

Now then, even Trump seems to understand that several of the justices are 'straightshooters' to their judicial worldview. However, these recent 'shooters' have been selected because of their "originalist" judicial tendencies. Thus, even the prior swing vote jurist on the court, its chief justice, tends to call out the administration for its attitude of presumptive 'speaking' to the court principally. If a constitutional basis can be established and it clasp hands with standing and other elements of law - it can win over the conservatives who will not consider the matter morally or consciously. In other words, the jurists may deal with the matter with precision and coldly.

By the time this goes before the Supreme Court, the conservative court, the house and senate votes will have already been casted and the races decided. At the earliest, corrective retribution will be outstanding for two more years. (If I follow what you mean by loss of seats and careers.)

'Catch me up' on where I may be reading your comment wrong!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.9  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.7    4 years ago
I just do not see how you would be persuaded to think they would knowingly engage in this scheme given the likelihood that it will be exposed and their political careers will be compromised.

Our differences seem to be that you think that legislators will believe there will be consequences and I don't think they do. 

I gave the history of Wisconsin's GOP legislature as an example. There have been no consequences to the crap they've been doing for a decade. 

The constitutionality of a state legislator selecting its own electors has never been in question by me.

Then your use of 'no constitutional ethics' was confusing. At this point it doesn't matter what you meant. 

My response to that is that I believe the justices areNOT pure partisans and value their constitutional / legal ethics.   

I disagree and IMHO a review of recent rulings bares that out. 

We apparently have very different bars here.

Obviously. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  CB @9.2.8    4 years ago

All I am saying is that the justices on the SCotUS will naturally assume positions that are constitutional and best consider legal precedent (where established).   While they will each naturally be swayed by their ideological (and otherwise) biases (given they are human beings), I do not see any of them knowingly prioritizing ideology such that they compromise constitutionality and/or established legal precedent.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.10    4 years ago
All I am saying is that the justices on the SCotUS will naturally assume positions that are constitutional and best consider legal precedent (where established).   While they will each naturally be swayed by their ideological (and otherwise) biases (given they are human beings), I do not see any of them knowingly prioritizing ideology such that theycompromiseconstitutionality and/or established legal precedent.

That was well-stated.

I think some others believe that Justices will not rule based on law, even though they would be hard-pressed to present any evidence to the contrary.

Even dissenting voices can be based on laws, just perhaps a different interpretation of them by the majority. Ginsburg showed that quite adeptly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @9.2.9    4 years ago
Our differences seem to be that you think that legislators will believe there will be consequences and I don't think they do. 

You are correct, I do believe the legislators will recognize a political risk to their careers to engage in such a scheme.

Then your use of 'no constitutional ethics' was confusing.

This ...

TiG @9.2.3The D party would be all over this with lawsuits, etc.    And if any of this activity made its way to the SCotUS, the conservative majority does not mean a majority of justices would simply rule in favor of Trump.   That presumes all the conservative justices are pure partisans with no constitutional / legal ethics.

... is the best I have regarding clarity.  I will make one last attempt.  I am talking about lawsuits, etc. brought by the D party.   I was and am simply saying that I do not believe the conservative justices would compromise constitutional and legal ethics (established precedent,etc.) in order to rule in Trump's favor on matters (unspecified as of yet) brought before them.    And this is all in the backdrop of your opening objection:

Dulay @9 ☞ What would stop him?   Not his SCOTUS.

In short, I do not believe the SCotUS is going to act as Trump's SCotUS.

I disagree and IMHO a review of recent rulings bares that out. 

Acknowledged.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.13  CB  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.10    4 years ago

Okay. As we can see Trump has his 'bank' of lawyers strumming the strings of our aged-old constitution notes we have forgotten as we moved on through time. Trump is asking his lawyers to up-turn the Constitution and shake out it 'innards' for inspection. What turns up is gaps to be re-interpretated—conservatively. By a newly minted conservative court.  (See Mitt Romney call it just that this week .) Why Mitt can't just go with what is morally right for all people, well I digress. The point is we are going to get hit smack in the political 'face' with hard-core conservative outlooks on the law. Apparently, something we have not experienced since conservatives have been playing 'nice' for decades. Get ready for a Trump conservative take on the constitution and the "refreshing" to our Rule of Law.

Legal precedent is about to go bye-bye in a hail of smoke labeled "not original" - That is, never approved by the proper number of states, according to the constitution!

Nearly all conservatives have long argued for a return (a reset) to the constitution before lawyers got involved in carving it up and inserting gray areas where certain population groups lived out their entire existences in repression and suppression . After the manner Trump has carried out full-frontal aggression on U.S. statues and international policy; conservatives will aggressively run-up cases to the federal system which they viewed as hostile to them. (See Romney video.) This is their big opportunity. There is no sufficiency in numbers to mock their efforts. Of course, and unless, their own jurists stab them in the back. (And that is how they will see that last too.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  CB @9.2.13    4 years ago
Legal precedent is about to go bye-bye in a hail of smoke labeled "not orginal"

I would like to NOT generalize to all matters since I was talking specifically about the court compromising its core ethics in order to favor Trump.

A conservative court can be expected to favor conservative ideology once constitutional and legal precedent factors have been considered and acted upon.   The remaining wiggle room will be pure judgment and judgment by human beings invariably includes ideology (and other biases).

My position per this thread, again, is that I do not believe the SCotUS will compromise its constitutional and legal ethics for Trump.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.15  CB  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.14    4 years ago
I do not believe the SCotUS will compromise its constitutional and legal ethics for Trump.

We will have to standby and see what the 'end' will be. Because certain conservative justices (i.e., Thomas, for one) rarely has any use for a 'middle ground view' of the constitution. It is as if he, Thomas seriously believes that the founding fathers did not take account (leave any quarter) of any of its liberal constituents at this document writing and assimilation.

Granted. We all now wish the constitution was a 'pure' document. Actually, it was a document projecting grand designs on its "subjects." However, there were people then that frothed at each other, and it generationally continues churning the legal waters to this day. That is, there are people among us who wish a firmly established patriarchy and Christendom and they call that a "return to our nation's inception." It is not! But, some of these folks continue unrelentingly falling and rising up again in their off-spring.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  CB @9.2.15    4 years ago

Would Thomas hold true to the constitution and legal precedent as best he understands same?   Or would he compromise either of these in favor of ideology?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.17  CB  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.16    4 years ago

That's a good question. Unfortunately, I have to admit, I rarely read his opinions or dissents—usually taking it as if I read Scalia's opinion or dissent, it is "ditto" for Thomas!

That said. Thomas, as are all the justices, are singled out for possible supreme court lifetime positions to be more than the sum total of tomes on case law and jurisprudence. In our nation, we are a great mixed people—deliberately. Though we strive to perfect each other, where we fail and the gaps between people widen, our system of justice is intended to make this group or that group whole or at the least "connected" (legit) to the rest of us.Consequently, Thomas, was expected to be a type of Thurgood Marshall, expressing insights in law that helped make black people 'whole' or 'connected,' even as Sotomayor would inject flecks of latina/o understanding and sufficient 'flavor,' as done by flavors of catholic, a jew, a woman, or whomsoever.

Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology. Evidenced by him ignoring that Scalia's orginalist mindset on constitutional outgrowth, which Thomas assents to, would permanently leave a black Americans as second-class citizen, that is, as 'legal after-thoughts.' Similarly as is the case for women and those other types in my first paragraph. (No one considers whether White Male Protestants are anything other than first-class constitutionally.)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.17    4 years ago
Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology.Evidenced by him ignoring that Scalia's orginalist mindset on constitutional outgrowth, which Thomas assents to, would permanently leave a black Americans as second-class citizen, that is, as'legal after-thoughts.'Similarly as is the case for women and those other types in my first paragraph. (No one considers whether White Male Protestants are anything other than first-class constitutionally.)

How does that square with Thomas voting with Ginsburg 49% of the time, with Thomas voting with Elena Kagan 50% of the time, with Thomas voting with Sotomayor 44% of the time, with Thomas voting with Breyer 52% of the time during the October 2019 term?

Please, expand on your theory about Thomas relegating himself to conservative idealogy. Is it your posit that those "liberal" Justices relegated themselves to conservative idealogy, too?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.18    4 years ago
Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology

That comes from the same racist groupthink that attacked Thomas as Scalia's puppet. Thomas has been willing to side with four liberals to give them a win. It's the Democratic justices who never break from the party mindset to provide a decisive vote in contentious cases. It's the democratic justices who are fungible  ideological votes. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.20  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.18    4 years ago
How does that square with Thomas voting with Ginsburg 49% of the time, with Thomas voting with Elena Kagan 50% of the time, with Thomas voting with Sotomayor 44% of the time, with Thomas voting with Breyer 52% of the time during the October 2019 term?

Point of clarification: Where did I express anything of Thomas' voting record? In 2019? What does that have to do with Scalia? He was not around in 2019, having died in 2016. Do you have stats for then?

Or this from 2019 in The Nation ?

The Apparatchik

The rise of Clarence Thomas.

By Randall Kennedy

October 29, 2019

As a justice, Thomas has developed a distinctive persona. Resolutely silent during oral arguments, he writes bold opinions in which he uninhibitedly repudiates precedent , wielding an interpretive methodology in which he purports to propound an originalist understanding of the Constitution. He focuses on the racial consequences of cases more than his colleagues do, and he also refers to black thinkers—for example, Frederick Douglass and Thomas Sowell—who are largely ignored by the other justices. With a voting record that places him at the right edge of a conservative court , there is little question where his politics lie, and he is said to be President Trump’s favorite justice. 

Source:

Note: I don't follow the career of Thomas (maybe I should and could going forward). I will look deeper into his as time progresses. However, he is of the Scalia "orginalist" doctrine.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.21  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.2.19    4 years ago

Easy for you say,. . .Sean. After all, all I see is rhetoric and no information to digest. Would it be too much labor for conservatives to put link to comment backing up their statements in proper and sufficient context ?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.18    4 years ago
How does that square with Thomas voting with Ginsburg 49% of the time, with Thomas voting with Elena Kagan 50% of the time, with Thomas voting with Sotomayor 44% of the time, with Thomas voting with Breyer 52% of the time during the October 2019 term?

Well since about 40% of the cases were 8-0 or 9-0, that takes care of the lions share. 

Care to go figure out the percentage of case that Thomas broke with the conservatives? 

Seriously, Thomas was the MOST conservative Judge on the court in 2019. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.23  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.2.19    4 years ago
That comes from the same racist groupthink that attacked Thomas as Scalia's puppet.

Actually, it comes from the facts. Statistics prove that Thomas now the most conservative Justice. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.2.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.2.23    4 years ago

That’s not responsive.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.2.24    4 years ago

It's factual rebuttal. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.2.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.2.25    4 years ago

No, it’s not.  Try again, and think what the words used mean.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.20    4 years ago
Point of clarification: Where did I express anything of Thomas' voting record? In 2019? What doesthathave to do with Scalia?Hewas not around in 2019, having died in 2016. Do you have stats for then?

When you wrote THIS:

Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology

you seem to think that conservative ideology is forefront, not the law. I just proved you wrong is all. If conservative ideaology is at the forefront of his decisions, he would never vote with liberal Justices.  And they certainly wouldn't be voting with Thomas!

I do not have stats for earlier years, but I could research them as easily as you--that is how I quoted real facts and stats, not platitudes about conservative idealogy with no basis in fact.

Note: I don't follow the career of Thomas (maybe I should and could going forward). I will look deeper into his as time progresses. However, he is of the Scalia "orginalist" doctrine.

Perhaps it would behoove you to look at his whole career as a member of SCOTUS before declaring him anything, then.

The Apparatchik

The Rise Of Clarence Thomas.

ByRandall Kennedy

October 29, 2019

As a justice, Thomas has developed a distinctive persona. Resolutely silent during oral arguments, he writes bold opinions in which he uninhibitedlyrepudiates precedent, wielding an interpretive methodology in which he purports to propoundan originalist understandingof the Constitution. He focuses on the racial consequences of cases more than his colleagues do, and he also refers to black thinkers—for example, Frederick Douglass and Thomas Sowell—who are largely ignored by the other justices. Witha voting record that places him at the right edge of a conservative court, there is little question where his politics lie, and he is said to be President Trump’s favorite justice. 

A very strange thing to post after previously declaring this:

Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology.Evidenced by him ignoring that Scalia's orginalist mindset on constitutional outgrowth, which Thomas assents to, would permanently leave a black Americans as second-class citizen, that is, as'legal after-thoughts.'Similarly as is the case for women and those other types in my first paragraph. (No one considers whether White Male Protestants are anything other than first-class constitutionally.)

It can't be both ways.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.2.22    4 years ago
Well since about 40% of the cases were 8-0 or 9-0, that takes care of the lions share

Which adeptly negates the poster's posit that Thomas is "Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology".

Unless you posit that in about 40% of the cases, liberal Justices relegated themselves to a conservative idealogy.

It just can't be both. 

Care to go figure out the percentage of case that Thomas broke with the conservatives? 

I know where to look, if I choose to. Same place I got the numbers I posted before. if you ate asking me to do research for you, forget it.

Seriously, Thomas was the MOST conservative Judge on the court in 2019. 

So what? Someone was also the most liberal Justice on the court in 2019. So what?

I didn't claim he wasn't conservative.

Even your own numbers you quoted show that Justices decide cases based on law. Some want to simply think that BECAUSE a Justice is conservative, they don't or won't apply the law.

That was kind of the whole point I was making.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.29  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.2.26    4 years ago

Suppose YOU support your claim Sean.

You claimed that the idea that Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology comes from 'racist group think'. 

So you should be able to point to statistics, or at least racist analysis of Thomas' rulings that prove your posit.

Please proceed. 

 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.30  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.28    4 years ago
Which adeptly negates the poster's posit that Thomas is "Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology". Unless you posit that in about 40% of the cases, liberal Justices relegated themselves to a conservative idealogy.

No Tex. What it 'adeptly' does is prove that in at least 40% of the cases, ideology wasn't  a factor.

It just can't be both. 

That's the kind of comment that illustrates a lack of cogent analysis and an inability to recognize that not everything can be viewed though an either or lens. 

I know where to look, if I choose to. Same place I got the numbers I posted before. if you ate asking me to do research for you, forget it.

Translation: So rarely as to be infinitesimal. 

So what? Someone was also the most liberal Justice on the court in 2019. So what?

It refutes your argument that Thomas DOESN'T relegating himself to conservative idealogy. 

THAT'S what. 

I didn't claim he wasn't conservative.

Yet you've tried and failed to prove that he hasn't 'relegated himself to conservative ideology' even though you admit that you know where the statistics are to prove that his HAS.

Even your own numbers you quoted show that Justices decide cases based on law.

No Tex. All the numbers that I quoted show is how often all the Justices who heard the case agreed. 

Some want to simply think that BECAUSE a Justice is conservative, they don't or won't apply the law. That was kind of the whole point I was making.

I haven't seen that argument being made in this thread.

MY argument is that while Thomas may 'apply the law', he does so from a clearly documented conservative ideology. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.2.30    4 years ago

Please show me some of those 9-0 cases and how Thomas' conservatism made him vote the way he did.

If ideology isn't a factor in those cases, why do you assume it is in other cases?

What do you base the claim that ideology played no part in those cases on?

Do you recognize that two people can read  laws, hear cases, and come to two different decisions, and that it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with ideology?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.32  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.31    4 years ago
Please show me some of those 9-0 cases and how Thomas' conservatism made him vote the way he did.

Well gee Tex, I would but you've set the standard here:

I know where to look, if I choose to. Same place I got the numbers I posted before. if you ate asking me to do research for you, forget it.

Goose, gander. 

So you'll just have to go look them up and READ them for yourself. 

If ideology isn't a factor in those cases, why do you assume it is in other cases? What do you base the claim that ideology played no part in those cases on?

I 'assume' nothing Tex. As you should know by now, I actually READ SCOTUS opinions. Both majority AND dissenting. 

Do you recognize that two people can read  laws, hear cases, and come to two different decisions, and that it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with ideology?

Yes, do you? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.2.32    4 years ago

yes as evidenced by anyone who actually read and understood my post would show.

I suppose we just see SCOTUS differently.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.33    4 years ago
yes as evidenced by anyone who actually read and understood my post would show.

Well judging from the fact that you claimed that Thomas' voting with liberal judges somehow proved his neutral ideology, no. 

I suppose we just see SCOTUS differently.

IMHO, we value facts differently. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.2.34    4 years ago
Well judging from the fact that you claimed that Thomas' voting with liberal judges somehow proved his neutral ideology, no. 

Ah, I see a problem there. I never claimed that.

IMHO, we value facts differently. 

I see that we do, like the above shows.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.36  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.27    4 years ago
you seem to think that conservative ideology is forefront, not the law. I just proved you wrong is all. If conservative ideaology is at the forefront of his decisions, he would never vote with liberal Justices.  And they certainly wouldn't be voting with Thomas!

Just read the damn article. I provided you. You support Clarence Thomas, I reckon, for the same reasons you support Donald Trump. Is Donald Trump a liberal? I suppose both Clarence and Donald garner your "allegiance" because they do a lot of nice things for you and your worldview.

Well, not so for mine. And as Dulay (shout out!) pointed out and I paraphrase, even a stopped clock is right several times a day. Moreover, with the limited number of cases involved in any given season on the court, it is possible for liberals and conservatives to agree from differing worldviews.

Lastly, I was talking about constitutional originalist thinking. The question for you is this:

Is Clarence Thomas an 'originalist' or not?

All that other clanging around you do besides, is irrelevant.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.37  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.27    4 years ago
It can't be both ways.

What can't be both ways?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.38  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.35    4 years ago
Ah, I see a problem there. I never claimed that.

Not in so many words but you sure as hell tired to prove it and you failed miserably. 

I see that we do, like the above shows.

If by the above you mean the fact that you asked for information that you claimed to already have access too and you claimed that my numbers show something that they don't, YES, the above does show that. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.39  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.28    4 years ago
Even your own numbers you quoted show that Justices decide cases based on law. Some want to simply think that BECAUSE a Justice is conservative, they don't or won't apply the law.

I have not stated that a conservative justice won't "apply" the law. I will continue to state (as liberal justices do) that the supporters of constitutional originalist thinking are an attempt to avoid courts 'righting' inequities in our system, due to weak congressional sessions. That is, differing congresses iare inept in passing and improving proper laws that work and take account of the needs and lives of the citizenry, and the high court's conservatives wish to sit on their damn hands doing nothing to hear the pleads of the citizens to act in congress' stead. Even when the deficiencies are numerous and recognizable.

That should not be! More later on this one, if you come back that is.

(It's that tired old argument about the constitution being "static" or "living.")

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.36    4 years ago
Just read the damn article. I provided you.

I read the opinion piece you offered. Kind of ballsy to assume I didn't, but, whatever.

You support Clarence Thomas, I reckon, for the same reasons you support Donald Trump.

I can't stop you from making erroneous guesses.

Is Donald Trump a liberal?

No. Are we switching to Trump now, away from SCOTUS?

I suppose both Clarence and Donald garner your "allegiance" because they do a lot of nice things for you and your worldview.

I can't stop you from making erroneous guesses.

Is Clarence Thomas an 'originalist' or not?

Don't know, don't care, and don't understand the fascination with it, personally.

All that other clanging around you do besides, is irrelevant.

I don't accept you as sole arbitrator of relevance. Sorry!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.37    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.42  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.2.38    4 years ago
Not in so many words but you sure as hell tired to prove it and you failed miserably.

When you claim I stated something I didn't, it is no surprise that you get other stuff wrong, too.

If by the above you mean the fact that you asked for information that you claimed to already have access too and you claimed that my numbers show something that they don't, YES, the above does show that. 

Please quote me claiming your numbers show something they don't. Otherwise I will assume you are merely guessing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.43  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.39    4 years ago
That is, differing congresses iare inept in passing and improving proper laws that work and take account of the needs and lives of the citizenry, andthe high court's conservatives wish to sit on their damn hands doing nothing to hear the pleads of the citizens to act in congress' stead.Even when the deficiencies are numerous and recognizable. That should not be! More later on this one, if you come back that is.

Okay, we disagree. I don't believe the courts are for legislating, I believe that is Congress' job. Maybe you have heard differently.

I consider it the Court's job to rule on cases before it, based on laws.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.44  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.40    4 years ago

Then stop wasting time. You chimed in @9.2.17 so sure of your statements, and now you are balking?! Give it a rest (if you can).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.2.45  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.43    4 years ago

I fully glean what you believe. Courts do not legislate. What courts do is judge the rightness or wrongness of a case using the inherent 'powers' in the constitution and case law. The hopeful effect which is to correct a deficiency/ies. Keep up. Incidentally, only a staunched conservative deploying a talking point would state a nuanced position that courts "legislate."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.46  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.44    4 years ago
Then stop wasting time.

My time to waste, and you are not the boss of me! (Chuckle)

You chimed in @9.2.17so sure of your statements, and now you are balking?! Give it a rest (if you can).

I chimed in. Isn't that what public forums are for? People to  voice their opinions?

I am balking, as you put it, to rehash stuff already said and there for you to read. Either you figure it out or you don't. It isn't my job to connect everything for you. Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.47  Texan1211  replied to  CB @9.2.45    4 years ago
I fully glean what you believe.

That certainly looks to be up for debate.

Courts do not legislate.

I know that. Was that unclear from my comment?

What courts do is judgethe rightness or wrongness of a caseusing the inherent 'powers'inthe constitution and case law.

Again, we disagree. I believe the Court rules based on law, not what is considered right or wrong. Ruling based on right or wrong instead of the law leads to attempts to legislate from the bench.

Incidentally, only a staunched conservative deploying a talking point would state a nuanced position that courts "legislate."

Meh.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
9.2.48  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.2.42    4 years ago
When you claim I stated something I didn't, it is no surprise that you get other stuff wrong, too.

When YOU claim that I stated that YOU stated something when I didn't, ditto. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.49  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.2.48    4 years ago

R-i-g-h-t.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
9.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  TᵢG @9    4 years ago
To think that is possible in modern day USA is beyond ridiculous.

To think that it was possible for Trump to be elected POTUS was beyond ridiculous.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9.3    4 years ago

I agree.   But that does not make this scheme likely to succeed.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
10  Greg Jones    4 years ago

What will happen if Biden refuses to concede? What should be the time limit on late, lost, or "found" votes?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
10.2  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @10    4 years ago

Each states has legislated that and Federal law requires that they certify their electors by Dec. 8th. 

Done.

 
 

Who is online


Sparty On
Krishna
CB
Right Down the Center
mocowgirl
Outis


74 visitors