Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He did the right thing and followed the constitution.
The Constitution has provisions for handling such disputes. Pence could have taken advantage of that and sent the dissenting states back to the drawing board.
Roberts must be compromised, he’s basically transitioned to a Democrat.
Most people don’t really mention it, but if he voted the other way in the Pennsylvania voting case, it’s very possible Trump is the President right now.
John Roberts was appointed in 2005. The Republican party has moved further Right since that time. Roberts is still the same guy, Republican expectations have moved.
The Constitution has provisions for handling such disputes. Pence could have taken advantage of that and sent the dissenting states back to the drawing board.
Negative. Pence had no such power. His role was a ceremonial one in the joint session. That was a lie told to you by Trump, who needed a way to convince you he could still win when he could not.
Negative. Pence had no such power. His role was a ceremonial one in the joint session. That was a lie told to you by Trump, who needed a way to convince you he could still win when he could not.
"Another unlikely possibility is that Trump’s Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as Senate president, could try to throw out a state’s disputed electoral votes entirely if the two chambers cannot agree, according to Foley’s analysis.
In that case, the Electoral College Act does not make clear whether a candidate would still need 270 votes, a majority of the total, or could prevail with a majority of the remaining electoral votes - for example, 260 of the 518 votes that would be left if Pennsylvania’s electors were invalidated.
“It is fair to say that none of these laws has been stress-tested before,” Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer who represented the Bush campaign during the 2000 dispute, told reporters in a conference call on Oct. 20.
The parties could ask the Supreme Court to resolve any congressional stalemate, but it’s not certain the court would be willing to adjudicate how Congress should count electoral votes."
I do think on some key issues (abortion) -- there could be a definite advantage to having a conservative or a liberal depending on your view but what many of us forget.......these folks live and breath the law. There are procedures and precedent and blah blah blah. It is naive to think that they will just vote party line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
