THREAD: This may be the most important issue of our lifetimes, bec it raises the significant possibility that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be found unconstitutional and that there is no way to restore democracy by neutering the Electoral College. 1/
In the new case, Colorado was clear that the Popular Vote Compact is at stake: "[Colorado] argues... that we must decide whether there is 'any constitutional bar against the States binding their electors to the outcome of the State’s popular vote.'"
2/
The 10th Circuit concluded that states do NOT have that power: "states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President candidates of their choice."
3/
More: "The Twelfth Amendment allows no room for the states to interfere with the electors’ exercise of their federal functions." And: "neither the Tenth Amendment nor the power to appoint electors provides the states with the power to remove electors and nullify their votes."
4/
In a popular vote landslide, the Compact might result in enough electors voting consistently with the popular vote to override the defections of a handful of faithless electors. ...
5/
But in a closer election, there likely would be a free-for-all, resulting in an EC vote that reflects NEITHER the popular nor state-by-state results. It's an ugly image, and one that could deprive the resulting president of any veneer of legitimacy.
6/
(Of course, the alternative is to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College altogether and elect the president by popular vote. But amending the Constitution (like the Electoral College) is done on a state-by-state basis, not by national popular vote, ...
7/
... and it's unlikely to the point of impossibility that the smaller states that benefit from the Electoral College would vote to decrease their own power by agreeing to such an amendment -- which is why reformers have resorted to the Compact in the first place.)
8/
This case WILL go to the Supreme Court. And there is almost zero chance that this Court will vote to sustain the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, because doing so would remove the inbuilt advantage the Electoral College gives to Republicans, ...
9/
...not only in choosing the president but also, indirectly but substantially, in determining which party gets to choose federal judges (including Supreme Court justices).
It ain't gonna happen. Not with this Court.
10/
There are two tiny slivers of hope. One is that the Tenth Circuit found (mostly) that the plaintiff electors lacked standing to sue over their votes being changed. Play Future case, brought by electors who were ABOUT to vote, probably would be decided differently.
11/
The other tiny sliver of hope is the possibility that SCOTUS will decide that the issue is premature, waiting for a future case involving electors who are about to cast their votes immediately following the 2020 election. ...
12/
If that election yielded a clear result, with one candidate winning both the EC + popular vote, SCOTUS might conclude the issue was moot or a "political Q"...
13/
But, more likely, such a clear election might give SCOTUS cover to kill the Compact in its cradle, since at the moment it wouldn't seem to matter.
And, in a close election, SCOTUS would favor the EC (ie, the Republican).
14/
So I fear the National Popular Vote movement is doomed. Which would mean our nation is (possibly irretrievably) damaged -- a permanent non-democracy.
I hope I'm wrong. I'd love someone to show me I'm wrong. Please: prove me wrong.
15/end
I get your point, but see #2 above. If SCOTUS "upheld" the Compact but rendered it toothless, the appointed electors would be free to do whatever they want, + some will be pressured BIG TIME to ignore the Compact + vote how their state's electorate voted.
You: "I don't want to support Elmo's Twitter, but this still is where the cool kids are, and I value this community."
Me: "Yes, community matters! But your community is relocating. Here are some of the great writers, thinkers, and kind souls currently active on Mastodon: 1/
This feels like a good time to remind everyone that six days from now my bride and I will climb on @HawaiianAir #25 to celebrate our 30th anniversary by learning to sail on a 33' sailboat cruising Molokai, Lanai, + Maui + earning our @__ASA__ 101, 103, 104 certifications. 1/
I share this so that my fellow Olds can remember who they are: ageless magical beings who are still 5 and 21 and 35 and 50. We've experienced most of the ages, and so we are all of them.
2/
@HawaiianAir@__ASA__ And I share this so you Youngs can learn that youth is delightful but not conclusive. That age should not be denigrated (and ffs stop picking on Pelosi, the greatest SOTH since LBJ; maybe better).
3/
From a trial lawyer's perspective, this short hearing on Alex Jones' emergency motion to suppress the contents of his cell phone is amazeballs. Short thread: 1/
First, trial judges generally bend WAY over backwards to protect lawyers from possible legal malpractice actions, and put privilege-waiver genies back in the bottle when possible. Why? Bec they want the case to be about *the case*, not setups for a later malpractice action.
2/
For a judge to *not* at least grant temporary protection while a lawyer gets his sh*t together is remarkable.
But Jones abused discovery so badly all along that this judge has already defaulted him as a penalty -- the nuclear remedy for discovery abuse, almost never seen.
3/
We all know the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What many don't know is the Constitution's *other* militia clauses that give the 2A context: 1/
Yes, "militia" is discussed OUTSIDE the 2A. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power over national defense, including the army, navy – and militia. If we want to understand what the 2A means by "well-regulated militia," that's where we have to start.
2/
First, note that the Framers didn't trust standing armies; they knew Caesar had led his troops across the Rubicon to crush the Republic, + foresaw that a too-strong standing army could topple their nascent democracy in a military coup (as we've seen countless times elsewhere). 3/
I hope everyone understands this, but in case they don't:
The Senate gives votes to land, not people. Wyoming has 2 senators per 290,000 people; California has 2 senators per 20 million people. It's the ultimate "gerrymander." 1/
The antidemocratic Senate —> an antidemocratic Electoral College —> undemocratic Presidential elections.
President + Senate choose SCOTUS justices.
Therefore, in our supposedly "democratic" republic, the Executive, Supreme Court, and half the Legislature are undemocratic.
2/
Making it worse, the Constitution allows itself to be amended in any way EXCEPT changing how the Senate is elected.
The Framers didn't trust us to change the two seats per state Senate formula.