Even after all this, defenders of the Electoral College will still claim that it provides more stability than a national popular vote for president.
Their mistake isn't just blind faith or motivated reasoning. It's total certainty that the Constitution cannot possibly be flawed.
The Electoral College was a slapdash compromise concocted by men who disagreed about how the country should pick a president. It promptly failed, which is why we have the 12th Amendment. But now we are told the Constitution is sacrosanct, so we are stuck with this broken system.
The 2020 election has illustrated another reason why the Electoral College is a bad system: It lets the loser defy the reality of his loss for 2+ months while exploiting the *many* cogs in this convoluted machine that eventually produces a president. A popular vote avoids that.
But if you start from the conclusion that the Constitution cannot possibly be flawed, you can wave away the Electoral College's problems with abstract arguments about stability and federalism. "It's in the Constitution!" trumps an appeal to reason in modern political discourse.
The people who wrote our Constitution were not so confident in its divine perfection. After the Electoral College malfunctioned in 1800, they changed the rules. Today, the EC keeps malfunctioning, but we're no longer allowed to change the rules. It would be sacrilegious.
I think this implicit assumption—that anything in the Constitution must be good—is a pathology in American political discourse, with no greater emblem than the Electoral College. It's impossible to have a real debate about the EC if its defenders can cite an infallible authority.
All this to say: We are watching a major political party exploit the Electoral College to steal the election—or, failing that, to undermine faith in its outcome. Anyone who denies that the Electoral College is an easy mark has chosen blind faith in the Constitution over reality.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I will walk through the various statutes that the government cited to justify DACA; briefly explain how each statute bears on DACA; and provide a link to the text so that you, too, can see that the U.S. Code does not make "illegal alien" the proper term for DACA beneficiaries.
I will pause here to note that immigrants and their allies have long opposed the use of "illegal alien" when referring to DACA beneficiaries *for this reason.* I am not breaking any new ground, and I am surprised to learn that anyone familiar with DACA would make this error.
Good morning! At 10 a.m., the Supreme Court will issue opinion(s). SCOTUS scheduled this opinion day rather abruptly just yesterday. We have good reason to suspect it will do *something* in the census case given the tight timeline, but we'll find out soon enough.
Yesterday, SCOTUS declined to block a Kentucky order closing religious schools due to COVID—but only because the order is about to expire. There's no constitutional infirmity since Kentucky closed public schools, too, but Alito and Gorsuch were still mad.
BREAKING: By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that the challenge to Trump's executive order excluding undocumented immigrants from the census count for congressional apportionment is premature, dismissing the case. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
It has become a talking point on the right that Republicans are no longer asking the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify Pennsylvania ballots. That is false. Republicans told SCOTUS it *can* resolve this case without nullifying ballots, but would still prefer to have them nullified. 1/
Republicans face a problem in this case: Throwing out late-arriving ballots won't change the outcome of the election, so Pennsylvania says the dispute is moot.
Republicans' latest brief seeks to avoid this problem by presenting two distinct theories. 2/
Theory #1: Republicans say that the Supreme Court can still provide relief by nullifying late-arriving ballots, even though its actions won't change the outcome of the Pennsylvania election, because counting those ballots still illegally dilutes lawful votes. 3/
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue orders at 9:30 and opinions at 10. This is the last orders + opinions day of the year.
Big news: The Supreme Court has declined to hear Box v. Henderson, turning away Indiana's request to roll back equal rights for same-sex parents. No noted dissents.
SCOTUS also issued a terrible AEDPA decision denying a writ of habeas corpus for an ineffective-assistance-of counsel claim to a death row inmate. It's a per curiam summary reversal. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor… (scroll down)
I would like to engage with this line of argument without any shade to Nate. I want to zero in on three pre-election cases in PA, NC, and MN.
Start with PA: Four Supreme Court justices made it quite clear that they wanted to throw out thousands of legal ballots in this state.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas tried to block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the basis of a truly radical constitutional theory. SCOPA extended the mail ballot deadline by three days; all four justices thought that was unconstitutional. slate.com/news-and-polit…
SCOTUS' conservatives spent the entire election season instructing federal courts not to intervene in state election processes. Then the PA Supreme Court ordered a modest expansion of voting rights, and four conservative justices tried to shut it down. Appalling hypocrisy.