Trump wins 5 to 4?

General Discussion
41

Well said. The founders did not intend for the executive branch to blindly accept and carry out any Supreme Court decision, regardless of its integrity. Had their intention been to establish a judiciary supreme above the other branches of government, they would have explicitly stated so. Instead, the founders designed a system of checks and balances where each branch of government, including the Supreme Court, is subject to oversight and accountability.

The founders envisioned a government where power is distributed among the three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—each with distinct but interrelated roles. This separation of powers ensures that no single branch can dominate or operate without restraint. The executive branch, in particular, has a duty to enforce laws faithfully, but this duty does not extend to executing decisions that are clearly unconstitutional or represent a gross abuse of judicial power.

By providing checks against the Supreme Court, the founders recognized the potential for judicial overreach and sought to prevent it. They understood that the judiciary, like the other branches, could be fallible and that mechanisms must be in place to correct or counteract such overreach. This system of checks and balances is essential for maintaining the integrity and functionality of the government, ensuring that the Constitution is upheld and that no branch exceeds its lawful authority.

Therefore, while the judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution and adjudicate disputes, its decisions are not beyond scrutiny or correction. The executive branch, when faced with a Supreme Court decision that is blatantly corrupt or unconstitutional, has a responsibility to act in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of justice, rather than merely complying with the decision. This balanced approach preserves the co-equal status of the branches and protects the fundamental tenets of the democratic system.

1 Like
42

Has anybody seen this about election deniers being the election officers in swing states. This is yet another path for Trump to win the election where his staunch supporters - election deniers are election officials in swing states and they won’t certify the election if he does not win.

1 Like
43

What will the reaction be if Trump losses by 10 million votes and SCOTUS puts him in the White House? Thomas and Alito desperately want to retire and enjoy being rich without criticism.

1 Like
44

That is your problem. You are assuming a lot of things. maybe you want Trump in office so much that you want to ensure we have a dictator no matter which party wins. That is a YOU problem.

Another you problem -

So you assume you are correct and you want to force your opinions on others? Regardless of how misinformed they are?
Which means you are trying to shove the dictatorship down our throats regardless of it being constitutional. Just like they shoved a war claiming Iraq is a threat to world peace. I have no interest in your oily doublespeak. In my book you are either for demcoracy or against. If you want to steal elections, you are no better than Trump. My primary goal is to keep dictators out of power - Dem or Republican. In your book it might bo okay if the dictator is from Dem party. But to me it is a uniparty. You can smooth talk your way out of it.

Nce try at trying to flip the argument.But you still haven’t addressed the main question I asked.

Faithful to whom? The country or the dems? Because your argument just sounds like unless dems are the winner everyone is open target for blatant power grab. Stop trying to talk around that question nd answer it directly. Is there any scenari where Repubs win where you will accept the election was fair. Or are you truly just blue MAGA now.

Your entire argument has been that there is separation of powers where you conveniently forget that all branches are CO EQUAL. So this is a discussion about two EQUAL brahces of government diagreeing. Your argument is that because Ecxecutive has the power to enforce their decision and SCOTUS does not, that enables the Executive to disregard rule of law and over ride the SCOTUS decision even if it might be unconstitutional? Because people have different ways of interpreting the constitution and right now your argument just sounds like IF we don’t win, everything was unconstitutional. So Exactly what Trump said in 2020? If you wanna be MAGA, just join MAGA.

You keep claiming “extreme” scenarios. THAT is fearmongering. But what you are citing are not Extreme. These legal challenges happen in many elections. Trying to use judicial math to win elections is you admitting Dems don’t have a chance. And I said, well then maybe you should have held actual primaries instead of stabbing your electorate in the back over and over.

Screaming now that people arent going to go along with you power grab is not going to solve anything.

45

You cant hide behind Separation of powers and checks and balances. Supreme curt is as much a check on Executive as executive is on SC. When your entire argument is SCOTUS has no way to implement its decision so lets do a power grab, that is a direct contravention to separation of powers between CO EQUAL branches. Just like UN has no way to enforce its decisions which is why we have a long list of war criminals in office. Every single president since at least 1945. Evry single one without exception. And you want to implement that mentality domestically. Dissgusting

46

ofcourse I expect u to misreprsent the constitution like everything else. A post hoc justification of cherry picked nonsense to explain an unjustifiable position. The usual. Let me quote Article III Section 2 for you:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

basically the SC IS the final arbiter in everything except impeachments.
And certain cases where the SC cannot ask a new president to implement something from the old president because the public mandate has changed.

The whole idea of having the supreme court is to protect the freedom of the citizens FROM government over reach. The SC exists to safeguard the Constitution FROM Executive overreach. Just like anti federalists wanted the Bill of rights in the constitution to safeguard people FROM the elected government and wanted to explicitly enshrine it in the constitution instead of leaving it to the federalist interpretation. Preventing them from inteprreting constitution however they like to get power is precisely a major role of the SC. Ofcurse power hungry Washington ghouls Hate exactly that about it. It is the same argument with regards to Bill of rights, between federalists and anti federalists hat goes on till today.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

EXACTLY what u are trying to do in case you see the Dems losing. So my question remains. If you are going to become whiny little twats like Turmp on election loss and subvert democracy with a nonsensical patina of “democracy and freedom”, then what is the point of voting Dem either? People who are never Trumpers are so because he is a threat to democracy. I think ur interpretation of democracy must be as flawed as the Pentagon’s interpretation of democracy and freedom.

47

And again, I am not claiming that SCOTUS hasn’t pushed the confines in their interpretations before. I specifically mentioned Citizens United and also in Roe. But that doesn’t counter the fact that the Executive does it all the time. Declaring wars without congressional approval or surveilling its own people etc. If the argument is Exectuvie trumps SCOTUS because SCOTUS has no power to implement its judgement than that is executive grab for power that undermines the Co Equal status necessary for proper separation of powers. It is Not checks and balances, it is a generated imbalance to break the checks on their power grab.

48

According to @wrongturn even if Kamala won the electoral college in all 50 states, a Supreme Court decision that Trump is the winner should be honored by the executive branch. So in other words, the judiciary is Supreme and the executive branch should have to carry out their decisions, even if carrying out the decision would result in the executive violating their oath to the constitution.

My viewpoint is no, we have separation of powers for a reason and the judiciary is not supreme. It would be much more dangerous for the executive to go along with disenfranchising the voters of 50 states than it would be to refuse to carry out a decision that ordered the executive to do so without just cause or evidence. If the executive failed to carry out the order and that caused a constitutional crisis, then the judiciary would have caused that. Keep in mind the ELECTORAL COLLEGE chooses the president NOT the Supreme Court.

1 Like
49

You’re still misunderstanding separation of powers and talking in circles. Separation of powers does not say that the executive branch and legislative branch must honor a Supreme Court decision that is unlawful. The other branches actually have a DUTY to not violate their oath under the constitution. If the Supreme Court ordered the executive to violate the constitution, the executive can use it’s power under the checks and balances system to not carry out such an illegal decision.

50

It sounds like you just want to argue then and I’ve been wasting my time debating you because you’re unwilling to change your viewpoint or make basic concessions. It seems your position is a judicial decision by the Supreme Court should never be checked and must always be honored, which is advocating for judicial supremacy. It would be undemocratic to disregard the electoral college results of 50 states, just because the Supreme Court said so.

If this isn’t your position - if you think there are some scenarios in which it would be lawful for the executive branch to refuse to carry out a Supreme Court decision, then we’re in agreement.

51

The only thing we can do is exercise our right to vote and deliver a landslide win to Kamala so overwhelming that the win is too big for the Supreme Court to get away with stealing it. That’s what we can control and the best mitigation to prevent another Roe. v. Wade scenario.

52

Just because Unfairness is built into the constitution primarily by the Electoral College, a system so dumb no other nation on earth does it, doesn’t make it right. Nothing Bibi is doing to Gaza is illegal by Israeli laws.

Hillary got more votes then Trump … and lost? How is that democracy? Olegarchy is as American as apple pie and it is wrong.

53

but it never explicitly says that in the Constitution. This is your interpretation and was not even established until Marbury
" Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established for the first time that federal courts had the power to overturn an act of Congress on the ground that it violated the U.S. Constitution. If SCOTUS ALWAYS had that power why did it take decades for them to say so? Why weren’t those words written into the constitution?
Once again, you have an opinion then you go out and collect ‘facts’ to prove it. Read Prometheus Rising. you can get it on Kindle.

54

Like if The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) was passed and then SCOTUS stepped in and said 'nope, not w/o an Amendment" and the we have to accept it.

55

No mR. YOu are misrepresenting what I am saying. I have repeatedly said the branches are CO EQUAL. I have never said once that Executive MUST honor SOTUS. I Have said SC is has the final authority on the law according to the constitution except in cases like impeachment et… Guess who makes laws? Legislature. Talking in circles wont save you from the fact that YOU have been saying Executve has more authority because it can enforce its actions unlike SCOTUS in case they DISAGREE.
Continuing to point nonsensical extreme scenarios and hypotheticals that don’t exist in the real world and have no connection to the topic of elections at hand wont justify this madness. You are yet to answer my question

56

I literally posted the Article for you. If you actually open up the article it has jursidictions of SC and situations where its powers are limited.

Why did it take decades? Because that was when the case was filed? I literally y quoted that case and Madison for you, if you had bothered to read it.

But you arent interested in having a proper discussion. Lile always you want to misrepresent cherry picked nonsense to justify a power grab.

As i mentioned in the example. In everything else, it DOES have the final say. You can argue that executive can CHOOSE to interpret constitution in a different way and then enfore that because SOCTUS cant do anything. Which is the whole argument you people are making. But that isn’t what separation of powers and O Equal branches of government means. It is a nonsensical federalist argument that we don’t need the SOTUS or the constitution to protect people from over reach of the executive because that is exactly what you want to do

57

maybe spend more time readint the actual constitution before you misreprent what it says

1 Like
58

That is not an argument. I 100% support rank choice voting and banishing the electoral college. But until that process is legally implemented, you have to follow the system we have. Hillary challenged the electoral college votes in her election too and she lost those cases. For all her faults, she at least had the sense to not blatantly grab power. This is not demcoracy isn’t an argument for violating constitutional processes.

Long story short, your answer is there is NO scenario where republicans are the winner where you will consider the decision fair. So this isn’t a legal or a constitutional argument but a political argument to justify using legal process to hijack an electoral process. Exactly what Trump did.

That is exactly what Hamilton and Madison were warning about when they said -

1 Like
59

That is a grandstanding strawman statement YOU have made. Because in reality you know your actual power grab argument has no legs to stand on.

I am still waiting for the answer to the question

Atleast nowthenzen was straightforward enough to admit he wont. But you want to continue democracy facing this tyrannical power grab.

You can put words into my mouth all you like but neither I nor people reading this chat are dumb enough to believe this. You have clearly assumed that SOTUS WILL declare repubs the winner and it WILL be an extreme case, But that is not the topic at discussion. The discussion was about making it appear as if no one has won and 2-3 swing states being challenged. A false equivalency between that and the nonsensical scenario you are citing is insane.

You have created a scenario to post hoc justify the nonsensical position without addressing the actual question. because you want to justify a power grab in a situation where public mandate isn’t clear. That isn’t a discussion or a debate, it is a nonsensical finger in the ears and screaming I wont accept election results if I lose. Just like the whiny petulant tantrum throwing toddler Trump.

60

You’re misinterpreting my position. I agree that the branches of government are co-equal, and each has a role in interpreting the Constitution. The judiciary has the final authority on constitutional interpretation in most cases, but the executive has a duty to uphold the Constitution as well. I am not advocating for the executive to have more authority; rather, I argue that in extreme, clear-cut cases where a Supreme Court ruling is blatantly unconstitutional, the executive should act to preserve constitutional integrity. This is not about refusing to accept election results based on dissatisfaction but about safeguarding the Constitution against obvious judicial overreach. The scenarios I presented are extreme hypotheticals to illustrate the boundaries of executive duty, not a call for a power grab.

1 Like