Michigan GOP statement

[Proud liberal 80]

People praising them, but this statement means nothing and still allows them to do some shenanigans.....what were they going to say besides what they said...did we expect them to say ‘after talking to president trump, we have decided to provide our own slate of electors’....I still thinks this statement allows them to do that later.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. There is NO WAY Trump summoned them without expecting something, and

NO WAY they didn't rush to his side during a pandemic, and knowing exactly how shady it looked, without knowing exactly what he expected.

Covid aid, my ass.

[dalton99a]

10. +1. It's bullshit

[fearnobush]

2. They would have been charged with election interference or sedition

Had they come out blazing fraud BS.

Watch for more BS on Monday when the state is expected to certify.

I’m sure ass Juiceiani has another shit show prepped for Michigan on Sunday.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Nope. They cannot act unilaterally to appoint electors. You are wrong. Nt

[sweetloukillbot]

4. I Took the statement as...

Trump tried to bribe us with COVID funds, we refused.

[Mister Ed]

9. Aye, that's my take as well. n/t

[Kaleva]

5. I have no idea where people get the idea that the MI legislature has the power to appoint electors

[Ms. Toad]

6. It's Bush v. Gore.

Trump plans to use dicta in Bush v. Gore to push Republican state legislatures to appoint their own electors.

The concept is that appointing the electors is, constitutionally, given to the legislature in each state. All (or virtually all) have enacted statutes that govern how electors are appointed. BUT - if they were to act post-election to appoint a different set of electors their word is the last word, constitutionally. Neither the state supreme court nor the US supreme court could overrule them - even though their actions would violate the laws they have enacted.

The dicta gained more steam when Alito brought it back up in the context of this election. There are several Bush v. Gore attorneys now on the Supreme Court - who might be expected to act consistently with the arguments they made below.

My Con Law professor, later a peer when I started teaching there, and now retired believes this argument would lose (largely because the election is not in Bush v. Gore realm, but prior to knowing the outcome had predicted that it might be a winning argument in the Supreme Court, given its current constitution.) (We've been meeting weekly in a small group and have been regularly discussing all of the legal twists and turns and avenues for a coup.)

[Kaleva]

7. MI Repub leaders say state law prevents them from appointing electors.

And there is no indication that a majority of Repubs have any inclination to do so.

Also, given the very narrow margin the Repubs have over Dem in the state House, it's unlikely they could even if most wanted to try. All would have to vote in favor.

The worst case scenario would be that the legislature attempts to select their own slate of electors but fail do to so because they don't have the votes in the House.

[Ms. Toad]

8. I agree it is extremely unlikely -

I was just answering your question about where people get the idea that it is possible.

[roamer65]

11. Sounds to me like they wanted a free junket to the WH.

[mvd]

12. Doesn't seem like much happened

Afterwards, they pledged to follow the law. They really have no choice.