Federal Court Gave Anti-Trump Electors Great News

[HAB911]

A ruling by a U.S. Appeals Court in Colorado on Friday in a case filed by Democratic electors has helped pave the way for Republican electors to cast their votes against Donald Trump when the Electoral College meets on Monday. In a footnote appended to its ruling the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that state officials are constitutionally barred from removing faithless electors – those who vote against the winner of their state – once voting has begun.

In their order the court’s three judges said that any attempt by Colorado’s Secretary of State to remove faithless electors “after voting has begun” would be “unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment,” which covers the functioning of the Electoral College. That interpretation is excellent news for the movement to convince Republican electors to block Donald Trump, as it provides a solid legal backing for violating state laws that require immediate removal of electors who break with their pledged vote. Such laws are in place in 28 states, many of which were won by Trump.

The lawsuit filed in Colorado ultimately aimed to overturn that state’s version of the pledged elector law, a move that was denied by the court even as it offered the interpretation that electors would be legally protected from removal once voting had actually begun. Jason Wesoky, a lawyer for the two electors who filed the suit, said he may pursue Supreme Court review of the matter. Any such review, however, would likely not occur until after the College’s vote on Monday. The most relevant piece of the ruling, however, is the declaration that there is no legal basis for removing electors once voting has actually begun regardless of the state faithless elector laws.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/12/18/federal-court-just-gave-great-news-anti-trump-electors/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-colorado-court-appeals-232777

[Girard442]

1. Be a hell of a thing if it actually happened

Like the lottery, the odds aren't good, but you know, people do win sometimes

[HAB911]

2. Even in failure

the effort has symbolic value IF the msm even reports objectively

[Jacob Boehme]

3. Maybe Im reaching here, but.

It seems like some perverse Archie Bunker has come to life and is on the verge of being installed as POTUS.

That in itself would be bad enough. But this mutant Bunker comes equipped with significant funds available to him and a nasty mean streak a mile wide.

Belligerent, ignorant, obnoxious and boorish…. Hell, what more could you ask for in a Fascist Demagogue?

[grantcart]

7. Dana Carvey had a. better take, he likened Trump to a

Batman villan.😃

[randome]

8. More like Al Bundy, I'm afraid.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[duffyduff]

4. The"Democrats" want to vote against Clinton

These electors are ASSHOLES and should be fired from their positions.

[dems_rightnow]

5. They're trying to set precedent...

.... that electors can't be forced to vote a particular way. They are not anti-Clinton.

[duffyduff]

9. Yes, they are.

At least one of the two original HEs is a Bernie supporter who doesn't want to vote for HRC.

The fact is ALL but one of these people are alleged Democrats. They are anti-Clinton shitheads because they are the ones pushing a third party instead of the popular vote winner.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. +1! eom

[Yupster]

15. I think they will eventually win in the courts too

Electors are Constitutionally created officers. I don't think they can be bound by state laws.

Of course I'm not a lawyer either.

[NYC Liberal]

6. They're not voting against Clinton.

In order for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of these laws punishing faithless electors, someone needs to sue. Republican electors aren't so the Dem ones are.

[duffyduff]

10. Have you paid attention to the Hamilton Electors site?

They are all about pushing an illegitimate third party in there. By definition they are anti-Clinton shitheads.

[orleans]

12. they are willing to switch their vote to a republican lite

hoping that other republicans will do the same, thereby NOT ELECTING TRUMP

if every dem elector (across the country) did that, along with some of those discontent R electors, it would prevent a trump presidency.

how is that bad?

as it stands, the Rs have it--and the discontent ones will not vote for a dem. but they would vote for someone other than trump.

check this video out
at 6:33, beginning at "compromise" (keith explains it)

[AgadorSparticus]

14. At this point, I would rather have a republican light than trump

Because of Russia's involvement.

[Pantagruel]

11. Don't forget they're republicans

You're asking GOP stalwarts to be intelligent, non-partisan and fearless. There is "none chance" you'll find 37 of them.

[wcast]

16. Unless they vote for Hillary this creates a major problem down the road.

Republicans office holders, and republican voters, need to own their vote. And we need to cram it down their throats when they pretend to forget who put him in office. Trading Trump for a "republican lite" doesn't stop their plans. In fact, it allows them to hide what they are already going to do and look reasonable by comparison. Google Overton window.

Trump says what they all believe, the only difference is he says it out loud. We let them off the hook by putting another Republican in his place and allow them to disavow what Trump, and they as a party, stand for.