LOL@ this bullshyt. There are NOT two sides here. What has the govt failed to deliver white America that they haven't chosen to not have themselves? They are sheep lead by the shepherd of American right politics. This is on THEM.
Will the United States survive a constitutional crisis?
- Thread starter winb83
- Start date
Noam Chomsky is a Coli breh?
i think that the filibuster is lowkey holding the country together
that's the next real popping off point. when republicans get rid of it and pass nationwide open carry + make abortion illegal, or whatever the dem inverse is, and states start leaving
that's the next real popping off point. when republicans get rid of it and pass nationwide open carry + make abortion illegal, or whatever the dem inverse is, and states start leaving
Human nature.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
What exactly do you mean by “won’t move the needle and their impact won’t scale”?
Republicans are actively replacing honest actors like Brad Raffenberger (sp?) with MAGA loyalists to certify elections. Do you not see a real possibility of some state officials refusing to certify election outcomes because their party lost, and if so, do you think that’s something that will just recede back in the bag once it starts to happen with success?
ogc163
Superstar
Is hyperventilating about facism the left wing version of goldbuggery?
Move the needle means significantly change the status quo.
Won't scale means it won't become so prevalent as to become the norm. The specific repub bloc you are referring to and the the values they hold likely won't gain enough power and influence to change the status quo.
As for your hypo, I think the possibility that state officials not certifying results becomes normal and prevalent is low. If it became prevalent then there would be cause for caution, but until then I'm not fearful of what's happened so far being the beginnings of a revolt.
However, as I asked before, what's the time range for when the US obviously enters the revolution stage?
Move the needle means significantly change the status quo.
Won't scale means it won't become so prevalent as to become the norm. The specific repub bloc you are referring to and the the values they hold likely won't gain enough power and influence to change the status quo.
As for your hypo, I think the possibility that state officials not certifying results becomes normal and prevalent is low. If it became prevalent then there would be cause for caution, but until then I'm not fearful of what's happened so far being the beginnings of a revolt.
However, as I asked before, what's the time range for when the US obviously enters the revolution stage?
Godless Socialist CEO
Superstar
It's really not tho.....
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
What? You sound ridiculous. You’re comparing concerns about fascists who will reject election results that don’t go in their favor holding office over elections to goldbuggery?
Even if it doesn’t become prevalent and the norm isn’t it a problem if it happens in even one or two state governor or senate races every cycle or two?
I’m not sure what you mean by that specific Republican bloc but the last outgoing Republican President just attempted a coup and if an election were held today, there’s a strong chance he would win. And his enabling party is about the win back the House and Senate and have a huge SCOTUS majority.
And my hypo was not a hypo. It’s literally happening now. Heeding Steve Bannon’s Call, Election Deniers Organize to Seize Control of the GOP — and Reshape America’s Elections — ProPublica
Last edited:
ogc163
Superstar
Trump’s judicial campaign to upend the 2020 election: A failure, but not a wipe-out
"THE AFTERMATH
Although Trump had more judicial support than “one victory out of over 60 cases,” he lost all but one case—and the great majority of judicial votes in all cases disfavored his claims.
Nevertheless, Trump and his allies have not—to the best of my knowledge—sought to punish the judges who rejected his election-manipulation litigation, even though Trump was not reluctant to attack federal judges who crossed him during his initial presidential run or as president. Trump and allies haven’t advocated impeaching federal judges or eliminating their good-behavior tenure. Nor have I seen reports of hostile phone calls to judges—similar to those made to state election officials cajoling them to support his claims of fraud.
Nevertheless, the Republican-dominated Pennsylvania Legislature introduced a since-shelved post-litigation proposal to have members of the state’s Supreme Court selected from geographic districts. Although six states—ranging from Maryland to Louisiana—select high court members from districts, opponents of the Pennsylvania plan argued that it was a backdoor way to weaken Democratic dominance on the court and allow more legislative manipulation than other states’ methods.
WHAT MAY BE AHEAD
Clashes over the judicial response to Trump’s claims may be part of upcoming judicial elections, including efforts to seat more judges who would be receptive to fraud claims. An October 2021 Wall Street Journal editorial supporting a Republican candidate for an open Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat argued, “After Pennsylvania’s 2020 election mess, the state Supreme Court needs an injection of judicial restraint.” (The Journal’s chosen candidate, who said flatly that he saw no evidence of significant fraud in 2020, won the election.)
By a rough count, about half of the 43 state supreme court justices who considered Trump’s post-election claims (in all seven states) are slated to appear before voters by 2026—years likely covering the next presidential election and post-election litigation. Candidates will be free, under a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision, to tell voters how they view judges’ roles in election disputes and their views of the 2020 litigation.
Election volitivity could be enhanced if Trump, unlike during the recent litigation cycle, injects himself into campaigns to unseat judges who rejected, or express skepticism about, election fraud claims.
Furthermore—regardless of judicial selection outcomes—judges may be more receptive to electoral challenges in 2024 if state legislatures embrace the “independent state legislature doctrine.” Republican state legislatures are pointing to the Constitution’s Articles I and II provisions that authorize state legislatures to prescribe methods for selecting presidential electors. Also, legislatures may try to use a federal statutory provision to substitute their preferred slate of electors for those chosen by voters. Election expert Richard Hasen opines that, to the degree that the 2024 election turns on use of these provisions, post-election litigation advocates will “have an aura of respectability and expertise. Lawyers in fine suits making legalistic arguments are much more appealing than desperate lawyers making unsubstantiated claims of ballot box stuffing and other chicanery.”
In short, although Trump clearly lost the 2020 election litigation battle, he received more judicial support than generally realized. That and other factors may suggest rosier prospects for him in court battles over the 2024 election."
Although Trump had more judicial support than “one victory out of over 60 cases,” he lost all but one case—and the great majority of judicial votes in all cases disfavored his claims.
Nevertheless, Trump and his allies have not—to the best of my knowledge—sought to punish the judges who rejected his election-manipulation litigation, even though Trump was not reluctant to attack federal judges who crossed him during his initial presidential run or as president. Trump and allies haven’t advocated impeaching federal judges or eliminating their good-behavior tenure. Nor have I seen reports of hostile phone calls to judges—similar to those made to state election officials cajoling them to support his claims of fraud.
Nevertheless, the Republican-dominated Pennsylvania Legislature introduced a since-shelved post-litigation proposal to have members of the state’s Supreme Court selected from geographic districts. Although six states—ranging from Maryland to Louisiana—select high court members from districts, opponents of the Pennsylvania plan argued that it was a backdoor way to weaken Democratic dominance on the court and allow more legislative manipulation than other states’ methods.
WHAT MAY BE AHEAD
Clashes over the judicial response to Trump’s claims may be part of upcoming judicial elections, including efforts to seat more judges who would be receptive to fraud claims. An October 2021 Wall Street Journal editorial supporting a Republican candidate for an open Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat argued, “After Pennsylvania’s 2020 election mess, the state Supreme Court needs an injection of judicial restraint.” (The Journal’s chosen candidate, who said flatly that he saw no evidence of significant fraud in 2020, won the election.)
By a rough count, about half of the 43 state supreme court justices who considered Trump’s post-election claims (in all seven states) are slated to appear before voters by 2026—years likely covering the next presidential election and post-election litigation. Candidates will be free, under a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision, to tell voters how they view judges’ roles in election disputes and their views of the 2020 litigation.
Election volitivity could be enhanced if Trump, unlike during the recent litigation cycle, injects himself into campaigns to unseat judges who rejected, or express skepticism about, election fraud claims.
Furthermore—regardless of judicial selection outcomes—judges may be more receptive to electoral challenges in 2024 if state legislatures embrace the “independent state legislature doctrine.” Republican state legislatures are pointing to the Constitution’s Articles I and II provisions that authorize state legislatures to prescribe methods for selecting presidential electors. Also, legislatures may try to use a federal statutory provision to substitute their preferred slate of electors for those chosen by voters. Election expert Richard Hasen opines that, to the degree that the 2024 election turns on use of these provisions, post-election litigation advocates will “have an aura of respectability and expertise. Lawyers in fine suits making legalistic arguments are much more appealing than desperate lawyers making unsubstantiated claims of ballot box stuffing and other chicanery.”
In short, although Trump clearly lost the 2020 election litigation battle, he received more judicial support than generally realized. That and other factors may suggest rosier prospects for him in court battles over the 2024 election."
