Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.1K

Regardless of your opinion about faithless Electors, there is a dangerous precedent in this opinion from July 2020. (not sure if they have done this before, maybe this isn't unprecedented but it is dangerous none the less) The ruling was 9-0 in favor of State "binding" laws. 2 opinions were written. 1 by Kagan concurred with by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Kavanaugh and Alito. The other written by Thomas concurred with by Gorsuch. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

The danger is in the Kagan opinion. She redefined the word "Manner" in the Constitution. Thomas would not agree to this practice instead calling "binding" laws a 10th amendment State power. This is ridiculous on its own but not my purpose to address here. My purpose is to point out the danger of scotus redefining the intended meaning of the words in the Constitution. If by new definition of "Manner" it is ok for State to force an Elector to vote a certain way then look at article 1 sec. 4- States can prescribe the "Manner" of Electing Senators and Representatives. So can States use the "Manner" to tell us Electors how we must vote for those offices? Or can they tell those Offices how they must vote after being elected? What happens if "Manner" has 2 separate definitions? What if scotus redefines other words like "people" or "right" depending on their location in the Constitution? We in deep doo doo kemosabe's.

Regardless of your opinion about faithless Electors, there is a dangerous precedent in this opinion from July 2020. (not sure if they have done this before, maybe this isn't unprecedented but it is dangerous none the less) The ruling was 9-0 in favor of State "binding" laws. 2 opinions were written. 1 by Kagan concurred with by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Kavanaugh and Alito. The other written by Thomas concurred with by Gorsuch. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf The danger is in the Kagan opinion. She redefined the word "Manner" in the Constitution. Thomas would not agree to this practice instead calling "binding" laws a 10th amendment State power. This is ridiculous on its own but not my purpose to address here. My purpose is to point out the danger of scotus redefining the intended meaning of the words in the Constitution. If by new definition of "Manner" it is ok for State to force an Elector to vote a certain way then look at article 1 sec. 4- States can prescribe the "Manner" of Electing Senators and Representatives. So can States use the "Manner" to tell us Electors how we must vote for those offices? Or can they tell those Offices how they must vote after being elected? What happens if "Manner" has 2 separate definitions? What if scotus redefines other words like "people" or "right" depending on their location in the Constitution? We in deep doo doo kemosabe's.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (9).
[–] • 1 pt

What's the fucking point of having elector's if they are not going to be able to exercise free will?

[–] • 1 pt

That right there was my point in my book "The Electoral College for Patriots" by Town Crier. Elector is Constitutionally defined as an American citizen 18 and older with the right to vote. Having a right to vote does not square up with being told how to vote. Delegates are told how to vote Electors are supposed to be free. This is backed up by the federalist papers and the letter of transmittal from the delegates that created the Constitution. That is besides the point of the knot scotus had to tie itself into and redefine words in the Constitution to legitimize "binding" Electors. It is gross jurisprudence.