From Newsgroup: alt.tv.law-and-order
On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 12:05:17 AM UTC-4, jack wrote:
Just read it.
Best link I could find.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf
I found this: "Held: A State may enforce an electorrCOs pledge to support his partyrCOs nomineerCoand the state votersrCO choicerCofor President."
However, "Contrary to the ElectorsrCO argument, Article IIrCOs use of the term rCLelectorsrCY and the Twelfth AmendmentrCOs requirement that the electors rCLvote,rCY and that they do so rCLby ballot,rCY do not establish that electors must have discretion."
This seems odd to me. Why did the authors want electors if they simply echo what the people voted for?
I skimmed the rest of it. I am not reassured. This seems to me that the court is setting some groundwork for what will essentially be a national democratic vote for president. I don't think this is consistent with a Union of States.
I got a similar feeling looking at Ramos v. Louisiana where J. Gorsuch seems to be laying the groundwork for a future ruling that will require juries to consist of twelve members, an outcome I would like.
But this decision makes me nervous even though it is seemingly narrow.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote
"President Trump Reaffirms His Long-Standing Opposition to Electoral College, and Favors A Nationwide Vote for President
In 2012, Donald Trump said, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. ... A total sham and a travesty.""
Yeah, well, about that. We're not a democracy.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2