Last Hope... Faithless Electors

Meaningless faithless elector ruling in The Supreme Court. There is no mechanism in the states to correct a vote from a faithless elector nor to punish them with more than a fine. It still stands then that it's up to the states to choose electors in the end.
Wonder what Idiot Dems and Idiot Leftists don't understand in this posting. Perhaps they should reread.
 
Wonder what Idiot Dems and Idiot Leftists don't understand in this posting. Perhaps they should reread.
Wonder what Idiot B1S2 doesn't understand about the 2 SC rulings posted.Maybe his dumb ass should read it again.
 
So we should hold up the country every time something is contested without proof? That will make for an excellent chaotic government going forward. No President will ever concede if they know they can hold power by contesting the results. You think the Founders wanted that?
Okay, now that one I'm not going to like. Who knows? maybe you can break through.
 
There is no mechanism in the states to correct a vote from a faithless elector nor to punish them with more than a fine.

Micheal Baca, a state-appointed presidential elector in Colorado, voted contrary to a state law that required electors to cast their electoral college ballots for the winner of the popular vote. Baca was removed as an elector and was replaced by another elector.
 
Meaningless faithless elector ruling in The Supreme Court. There is no mechanism in the states to correct a vote from a faithless elector nor to punish them with more than a fine. It still stands then that it's up to the states to choose electors in the end.
Idiot Dems should likely reread this posting and try to understand what's being said here.
 
Idiot Dems should likely reread this posting and try to understand what's being said here.

Idiot B1S2 should keep reading until he finally gets it.


Micheal Baca, a state-appointed presidential elector in Colorado, voted contrary to a state law that required electors to cast their electoral college ballots for the winner of the popular vote. Baca was removed as an elector and was replaced by another elector.


 
Last edited:
I don't think that's the issue at all.

When does "evidence" become "proof"? When adjudicated? Trump et al never got the chance in court to "prove" fraud... in spite of all the evidence. FBI said, "not interested, so not looking into it". SCOTUS said, "not gonna hear it". State courts said, "nothing to see here, just move along".

The "evidence" was summarily dismissed... most likely because of political motives, I say.

It could be dismissed because of political motives. You might be right. But we can't tell electors not to vote one way because we have a suspicion. If the President of the United States can't marshal the resources to properly investigate the issue, then he has isolated himself to the extent he is impotent in his job. I don't know what else to say. Its not a pretty situation.
 
If the President of the United States can't marshal the resources to properly investigate the issue

If you ask Trump or his lawyers, I'm sure they'd say they DID properly investigate the issues... up to the point where others prevented even further discovery.... had lots of eye-witness testimony, lots of filed affidavits, lots of irregularities about vote verification, etc... but he'd also say he wasn't allowed to reveal all and present his case.
 
had lots of eye-witness testimony, lots of filed affidavits, lots of irregularities about vote verification, etc..


And if that overturns an election the next election will have more claims of eye-witness testimony, more filed affidavits, more claims of irregularities etc.Than presidential elections will be decided by who has the most eye-witness testimonies,filed affidavits etc dumb ass.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top