Supreme Court hands Democrats huge defeat over Electoral College. States can remove faithless Electors

[White Power Matters]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

 

[Augustine_]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yeah, like Augustine I thought this would help Democrats

If this had been in place in 2016, wouldn't Hillary have been handed the election?

Doesn't this decision say that a states electors MUST give their vote to the candidate who wins the POPULAR vote?

 

[Shelzin]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

Good... then everybody is happy with the decision... Win for us all.

 

[toobfreak]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

Wow. That really SUCKS.

For the Left, that is.

They can't just all get together and make up their own system designed to just favor themselves screwing over the other states to assure an automatic win despite the will of the people! DAMN!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I don't see how this decision helps the efforts to circumvent the electoral college. The decision specifically shot down the concept of electors voting against the will of the people IN THAT STATE.

 

[Votto]

So the question begs, IF the popular vote was never meant to be overturned by an Electoral representative, why have one in the first place?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So the question begs, IF the popular vote was never meant to be overturned by an Electoral representative, why have one in the first place?

Damn!
Someone is thinking !

 

[bendog]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I don't see how this decision helps the efforts to circumvent the electoral college. The decision specifically shot down the concept of electors voting against the will of the people IN THAT STATE.

The STATES can apportion the electors, and the electors have to comply

 

[miketx]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

One scum stain on here already lied about what happened saying basically it was the opposite thing.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The presidential electors shouldn't have had that much power in the first place, in my opinion.

Seems kind of odd to me that ONE person can deny the will of millions.

 

[Votto]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I don't see how this decision helps the efforts to circumvent the electoral college. The decision specifically shot down the concept of electors voting against the will of the people IN THAT STATE.

The STATES can apportion the electors, and the electors have to comply

Then why did they appoint a representative? IF they did not intend for the representative to overturn the popular vote, then they would have simply said that it goes by the popular vote and bypassed the representative.

 

[Votto]

The presidential electors shouldn't have had that much power in the first place, in my opinion.

Seems kind of odd to me that ONE person can deny the will of millions.

Not when you consider how paranoid and distrustful the Founding Fathers were regarding democracy and mob rule.

For example, Congress has two chambers, one was elected directly by the people and the other appointed by the states. Progressives later changed the Constitution so that both chambers were elected directly by the people.

So looking at how both chambers were structured, the Senate had the most power in terms of responsibilities and longer term of office. This tells me that the Founding fathers trusted state representatives to choose a Congressman more than directly from the people.

And looking at who the people have elected over the years, it's not hard to see why they were so apprehensive about a democracy.

Incidentally, the US is NOT a democracy, but the Left continues to try and make it so, hence the left wing SCOTUS decision.

 

[bendog]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I don't see how this decision helps the efforts to circumvent the electoral college. The decision specifically shot down the concept of electors voting against the will of the people IN THAT STATE.

The STATES can apportion the electors, and the electors have to comply

Then why did they appoint a representative? IF they did not intend for the representative to overturn the popular vote, then they would have simply said that it goes by the popular vote and bypassed the representative.

Read the opinion.
or read the synopsis on scotus blog.

The decision has nothing to do with apportioning. It leaves everything as it was. Maine and Neb may still apportion. each elector must vote as directed when he/she was selected, and if they don't, they can be fined under individual state laws.

Seriously, if you actually think the Sup Ct wants to decide elections, why would the "four liberal justices," including Kagan who wrote the lead opinion, vote that way?

 

[Votto]

Big win for the 10th Amendment.
This ruling just blew a HUGE HOLE in the National Popular Vote Compact.
The two states directly involved in this ruling are Washington and New York. Both states have now been told by SCOTUS that their electors are BOUND to vote for the winner of the STATES Popular Vote results.

Both states are part of the compact to give the states Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote, but they just went to court to FORCE their electors to vote for the STATES Popular Vote Winner.



Here is the opinion:


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf


The States still have considered leeway in their method of selecting electors and what instructions may be given to electors. But electors must follow the instructions. What states cannot do is to enter into a compact under which multiple states conspire to formulate a certain instruction to electors.

The national popular vote group supports this decision. Note that the losers of the case were 3 voters who defected to vote against Hillary, which actually helped the idiot dotard.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for President. All 9 justices agreed with the result (with 8 justices agreeing to the majority opinion). Supreme Court decision in Chiafalo v.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

I don't see how this decision helps the efforts to circumvent the electoral college. The decision specifically shot down the concept of electors voting against the will of the people IN THAT STATE.

The STATES can apportion the electors, and the electors have to comply

Then why did they appoint a representative? IF they did not intend for the representative to overturn the popular vote, then they would have simply said that it goes by the popular vote and bypassed the representative.

Read the opinion.
or read the synopsis on scotus blog.

The decision has nothing to do with apportioning. It leaves everything as it was. Maine and Neb may still apportion. each elector must vote as directed when he/she was selected, and if they don't, they can be fined under individual state laws.

To be honest, I really don't give a rats about their opinion.

I can read the Constitution and I have a brain.

Thanks for asking

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the question begs, IF the popular vote was never meant to be overturned by an Electoral representative, why have one in the first place?

Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[two_iron]

Good for America. We don't have time to sift thru the illegal messkin vote to get a legitimate count. Let commifornia add a few million illegal votes to the tally, like they did last time, and it still does not affect the outcome. MAGA

 

[Norman]

Democrats are traitors of their own state.

 

[OKTexas]

So the question begs, IF the popular vote was never meant to be overturned by an Electoral representative, why have one in the first place?

Damn!
Someone is thinking !

Not really, electors represent the States in the same proportion as their congressional representation. Some States appoint electors proportionally, not winner take all. That's why they are needed, try putting your own brain in gear instead of relying on ignorant people to think for you.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So the question begs, IF the popular vote was never meant to be overturned by an Electoral representative, why have one in the first place?

I'm assuming you mean the national popular vote, correct?

If so, I agree. What's the point of an electoral college, otherwise?