US Supreme Court Hands Trump Another Big Victory

[protectionist]

Winning is a habit with Donald Trump. Losing is a habit for his enemies. In another big Supreme Court decision, favoring Trump more than any opponent, the Supreme Court decided to stop electors in the electoral college from "going rogue" and casting their votes for whom they choose, instead of who got the most votes from the American people.

This rogue practice had started to become a trend. It appears this trend would have been used to prevent Trump from winning re-election.

States can pass laws that punish so-called “faithless electors” who refuse to cast an official ballot for the winner of that state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Supreme Court Makes Historic Electoral College Ruling For 2020 Election

 

[okfine]

Winning is a habit with Donald Trump. Losing is a habit for his enemies. In another big Supreme Court decision, favoring Trump more than any opponent, the Supreme Court decided to stop electors in the electoral college from "going rogue" and casting their votes for whom they choose, instead of who got the most votes from the American people.

This rogue practice had started to become a trend. It appears this trend would have been used to prevent Trump from winning re-election.

States can pass laws that punish so-called “faithless electors” who refuse to cast an official ballot for the winner of that state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Supreme Court Makes Historic Electoral College Ruling For 2020 Election

Are you that old guy who fell asleep years ago and just woke up? This is State law in 30+ States already.

 

[task0778]

As I understand it, in a state where the state popular vote goes to candidate "X" then this SCOTUS ruling says the EC electors have to cast their ballots for that person. BUT - in that state where they passed legislation to give their EC votes to the national popular vote winner even if the popular vote in their state went to candidate "Y", that question has yet to be decided. If "X" wins the national popular vote then would the electors be bound by state law to vote for that person even if "Y" won that state? TBD. I think.

 

[meaner gene]

As I understand it, in a state where the state popular vote goes to candidate "X" then this SCOTUS ruling says the EC electors have to cast their ballots for that person. BUT - in that state where they passed legislation to give their EC votes to the national popular vote winner even if the popular vote in their state went to candidate "Y", that question has yet to be decided. If "X" wins the national popular vote then would the electors be bound by state law to vote for that person even if "Y" won that state? TBD. I think.

The decision makes clear that states are in charge of their elections. As long as they don't violate constitutional rights, they an enact any rules they see fit.

No one state can have their EC follow the national total, but it would be legal for any group of states to make a compact where their EC would go in accordance with the majority in that group of states.

 

[protectionist]

Are you that old guy who fell asleep years ago and just woke up? This is State law in 30+ States already.

Which means absolutely NOTHING. The SCOTUS ruling allows states to "punish so-called “faithless electors” who refuse to cast an official ballot for the winner of that state’s popular vote." Try reading the OP.

You think the Supreme Court makes rulings for nothing ?

 

[okfine]

Are you that old guy who fell asleep years ago and just woke up? This is State law in 30+ States already.

Which means absolutely NOTHING. The SCOTUS ruling allows states to "punish so-called “faithless electors” who refuse to cast an official ballot for the winner of that state’s popular vote." Try reading the OP.

You think the Supreme Court makes rulings for nothing ?

I know the ruling. You should realize others posted/read about this yesterday.

 

[protectionist]

As I understand it, in a state where the state popular vote goes to candidate "X" then this SCOTUS ruling says the EC electors have to cast their ballots for that person. BUT - in that state where they passed legislation to give their EC votes to the national popular vote winner even if the popular vote in their state went to candidate "Y", that question has yet to be decided. If "X" wins the national popular vote then would the electors be bound by state law to vote for that person even if "Y" won that state? TBD. I think.

It's very simple. Where an elector refuses to cast his vote for the candidate with the majority of votes in that state, he can be punished by the state. When voting in any other way that for the majority of votes in the state, that elector cannot get away with doing tht.

 

[protectionist]

I know the ruling. You should realize others posted/read about this yesterday.

I'm happy for them.

 

[okfine]

I know the ruling. You should realize others posted/read about this yesterday.

I'm happy for them.

Juvenile response. Now explain how this is a victory for juvenile Trump.

 

[Meathead]

Are you that old guy who fell asleep years ago and just woke up? This is State law in 30+ States already.

Joe woke up?

 

[occupied]

No decision that makes elections more trustworthy is a win for Trump.

 

[okfine]

Are you that old guy who fell asleep years ago and just woke up? This is State law in 30+ States already.

Joe woke up?

Now you dissed your compadre Protecto. Way to go.

 

[Moonglow]

Winning is a habit with Donald Trump. Losing is a habit for his enemies. In another big Supreme Court decision, favoring Trump more than any opponent, the Supreme Court decided to stop electors in the electoral college from "going rogue" and casting their votes for whom they choose, instead of who got the most votes from the American people.

This rogue practice had started to become a trend. It appears this trend would have been used to prevent Trump from winning re-election.

States can pass laws that punish so-called “faithless electors” who refuse to cast an official ballot for the winner of that state’s popular vote, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Supreme Court Makes Historic Electoral College Ruling For 2020 Election

So essentially nothing has changed.

 

[meaner gene]

Supreme Court Makes Historic Electoral College Ruling For 2020 Election

So essentially nothing has changed.

Trump lost so many major cases, that a ruling of everything stays the same is considered a victory.

 

[Moonglow]

Supreme Court Makes Historic Electoral College Ruling For 2020 Election

So essentially nothing has changed.

Trump lost so many major cases, that a ruling of everything stays the same is considered a victory.

All the Supremes could do was rule in the same manner they have previously on the same matter. It was a no brainer, why this was wasting time in the courts is just so someone could make some dough off a client.

 

[Thunk]

If democrat filth wants to fuck with the election we will have a NON-PEACEFUL Transition of power (AKA civil war).

Which is exactly what the filth wants!

 

[protectionist]

Trump lost so many major cases, that a ruling of everything stays the same is considered a victory.

Certainly it's a victory. If somebody sues you, You got to court. You win. You don't consider that a victory ? In politics it sure is.
As for Trump, you got a list of all the cases, so we can see what he lost, and what he won ? I recall him winning most of them. And I back up my words with proof >>

Supreme Court rules that Trump's travel ban is constitutional

The Supreme Court issued a ruling in Trump v. Hawaii, the controversial case concerning President Donald Trump's September order to restrict travel to the U.S. for citizens of several majority Muslim countries.

www.cnbc.com

Supreme Court rules against 2 teachers at religious schools in discrimination case

The court said constitutional language that protects religious freedom barred the teachers from suing their religious schools for employment discrimination.

news.yahoo.com

Supreme Court rules Trump can use $2.5B in Pentagon funds for border wall

The Supreme Court has decided the Trump Administration can redirect $2.5 billion Pentagon funds for the border wall constructions. The Court ruled in a

americanmilitarynews.com

SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump administration's asylum policy

hotair.com

Supreme Court rules for Little Sisters of the Poor in long-running dispute over birth control mandate - Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Little Sisters of the Poor are exempt from an Obama-era mandate to provide contraception in their healthcare plans, an outcome regarded as a major victory by religious liberty advocates.The case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, marked the...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Trump Plan To Put Pipeline Across Appalachian Trail

Much of the discussion yesterday focused on the historic ruling in favor of workplace protections for LGBT workers. Lost in the coverage was another case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of …

jonathanturley.org

Also:

The Court ruled against forced union dues that fatten public sector unions, and provide a gravy train of campaign cash to Democrats.

The court upheld Ohio's right to clean up its voter registration rolls.

It said that states can't force pro-life organizations to advertise abortion services.

And: as far as the SCOTUS decision on LGBT job discrimination, the Trump administration moved forward with a rule that rolls back health care protections for transgender people, even as the Supreme Court barred sex discrimination against LGBT individuals on the job.