9-0 supreme court decision

[nevergaveitathought]

electoral college decision

electors must vote the way their state voted

at least the headline I read says so

it may be that individual states will pass laws to try to thwart the constitution - not sure

[Unique_Carpenter]

A lot of folks fail to understand that the Supremes do not make law, they pass judgement on the crap folks bring to them as to if specific laws cover situation. When there's legislative ambiguity, is almost all their issues. The rest of the issues are if a law conflicts with constitutional rights, and if so, even the best carefully constructed law goes down.

The only time they really get into split decisions, is if a law is ambiguous, or partially conflicts with the big C.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

electoral college decision

electors must vote the way their state voted

at least the headline I read says so

it may be that individual states will pass laws to try to thwart the constitution - not sure

From what I'm reading, it was really just an affirmation that the state's have the ability to determine how their electors will be bound to vote at the actual electoral college, which could be different than how the state's voters actually voted.

Things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would still be able to move forward with this decision.

If a state decides to give it's votes to whomever wins the national popular vote, they would still have that right under this decision and per this decision, the electors would be bound to the state's decision.

[LexusLover]

With respect to the EL comment ... there are prior SCOTUS decisions that might prevent the voters of one state being bound by the votes of another.

"One man One vote" protocol.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

With respect to the EL comment ... there are prior SCOTUS decisions that might prevent the voters of one state being bound by the votes of another.

"One man One vote" protocol.

Yes, I totally agree there are some that "Might" prevent the voters of one state being bound by the votes of another, but those will be cited and argued if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ever actually gets enough traction(and it's getting closer than some think) to actually kick in.

And while the media is out there touting the 9-0 decision as what was stated in the OP(which is Kagan's write up of the decision) that electors must vote the way their state voted, that was not actually the reason for the final decision for the 9-0 decision in the actual case.

It was really a more 7-2 decision as to the reason with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch giving their own reasons.

Thomas's write up which was joined by Gorsuch was very telling in the pieces regarding the states rights in this instance.

Once paragraph in particular.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-465_i425.pdf

In short, the Constitution does not speak to States’ power
to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidates
chosen by the people. The Court’s attempt to ground such
a power in Article II’s text falls short. Rather than contort
the language of both Article II and the state statute, I would
acknowledge that the Constitution simply says nothing
about the States’ power in this regard.

This case was indeed very narrow in the broad scope of the Electoral College and the majority opinion relied on building upon just what has been done by the states for years. Many current state legislatures want to change that in a way to subvert the Electoral College, which is what scares me.

[Unique_Carpenter]

State elected officials considering side stepping their own state constitutions, who would have thought....

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

State elected officials considering side stepping their own state constitutions, who would have thought....

It's not in many of the state constitutions how electors are selected.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Yes, I totally agree there are some that "Might" prevent the voters of one state being bound by the votes of another, but those will be cited and argued if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ever actually gets enough traction(and it's getting closer than some think) to actually kick in.

And while the media is out there touting the 9-0 decision as what was stated in the OP(which is Kagan's write up of the decision) that electors must vote the way their state voted, that was not actually the reason for the final decision for the 9-0 decision in the actual case.

It was really a more 7-2 decision as to the reason with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch giving their own reasons.

Thomas's write up which was joined by Gorsuch was very telling in the pieces regarding the states rights in this instance.

Once paragraph in particular.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-465_i425.pdf



This case was indeed very narrow in the broad scope of the Electoral College and the majority opinion relied on building upon just what has been done by the states for years. Many current state legislatures want to change that in a way to subvert the Electoral College, which is what scares me.

And once AGAIN Justices find words and meaning never written in the Constitution. Once again Justices substitute their opinion based on how THEY think things should work in this day and age.


The decision should have read "the Constitution says nothing on this subject, therefor States are free to solve this problem or a Constitutional Amendment can be written to make it a federal law". This is what so called Conservative justices are suppose to do when they get to the court not make up words and meanings that do not exist. That is what legislatures are for.

[Ripmany]

But there no point in the people any more.

[rexdutchman]

thwart the constitution , Mail in voting Yupper what could go wrong