Expanding the SC aka The end of democracy

[hollodero]

First, I have a somewhat technical question about that. Could a republican majority in the senate, pretty much a certainty after the midterms and quite possibly beyond, simply pull the nuclear option, expand the court to 13 judges and put 6 strict Trump loyalists in there* [*EDIT in response to previous answers, I understand the president appoints justices, so this would be viable only after 2024 should a republican win]. I'd think they could easily do that [after 2024], but I'm not certain and the internet doesn't really answer that for me.

There's a reason I ask that, imho this could be the last puzzle piece to abandon elections - or say, the necessity to care about them - altogether and establish a one-party system. The rest is pretty much apparent imho, an authoritarian president with a loyal party in the majority in both chambers could do the trick quite easily. Like just using alternate electors from now on, who in the end would stop that if the next VP is on board? Or a president that quite literally can do anything he wants, in any case no impeachment will stop him and apparently no other legal remedy is available. The constitution is levered out quite easily that way, as of yet I have not seen any possibility to stop a president doing anything if his party holds the majorities (actually, a senate majority suffices) and is with him 100%. And this is very likely the case after 2024. Trump (or someone just like him, but probably him) will run and might win, and so will his Congress minions.

As for the SC, I chose 6 Trump loyalists for a reason, it seems Justice Thomas might already be on board. I mean, that would be embarrassing for Tadjikistan really. A wife of a SC justice engages in open subversion attempts - imho already a huge scandal in its own rights - and said judge does not have to recuse himself from related legal matters and hardly anyone seems to care about that, it's that normalized already. My trust in that branch is eroding quickly as well, for that reason and because it apparently turned into an institution just as political (and hence blindly loyal if need be) as the other two branches. Only thing possibly still missing is a majority of blind loyalists (I guess Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disappointed Trump greatly), hence the initial question.

I know folks will call me crazy for putting up a topic like this (and sure, go ahead), but I think this is all way more realistic than people would admit, or despite all conceded hyperboly at least worthy of debate. Eg. the republican party in Texas is about to pass a resolution that calls the election of Joe Biden illegitimate. And hearings discuss whether Trump knew he actually had lost? The Texas GOP doesn't want to see it that way, and I'd say almost the whole republican party does not, and a large part of their electorate. Mitch McConnell of all people apparently holds the fort, but I suppose even he is gone if Trump wins again. Other dissenters leave voluntarily or get primaried out.

Lastly, why do I care? Because that affects me in Europe as well. Hardly any of our tiny domestic topics is as important as an alliance (culturally, morally, value-wise, militarily) with the US that imho can not possibly be relied upon in good faith any longer.

[Belsnickel]

(06-20-2022, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: First, I have a somewhat technical question about that. Could a republican majority in the senate, pretty much a certainty after the midterms and quite possibly beyond, simply pull the nuclear option, expand the court to 13 judges and put 6 strict Trump loyalists in there. I'd think they could easily do that, but I'm not certain and the internet doesn't really answer that for me.

No. Justices are appointed by the President. The Senate cannot appoint a Justice.

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Justices are appointed by the President. The Senate cannot appoint a Justice.

OK I got that wrong, it can not happen right after the midterms, mistake on my part. But it could still happen if Trump were to be president. So they could make that move after 2024...?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2022, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: First, I have a somewhat technical question about that. Could a republican majority in the senate, pretty much a certainty after the midterms and quite possibly beyond, simply pull the nuclear option, expand the court to 13 judges and put 6 strict Trump loyalists in there. I'd think they could easily do that, but I'm not certain and the internet doesn't really answer that for me.

No, because the President has to nominate new members to the court.

Quote:There's a reason I ask that, imho this could be the last puzzle piece to abandon elections - or say, the necessity to care about them - altogether and establish a one-party system. The rest is pretty much apparent imho, an authoritarian president with a loyal party in the majority in both chambers could do the trick quite easily. Like just using alternate electors from now on, who in the end would stop that if the next VP is on board? Or a president that quite literally can do anything he wants, in any case no impeachment will stop him and apparently no other legal remedy is available. The constitution is levered out quite easily that way, as of yet I have not seen any possibility to stop a president doing anything if his party holds the majorities (actually, a senate majority suffices) and is with him 100%. And this is very likely the case after 2024. Trump (or someone just like him, but probably him) will run and might win, and so will his Congress minions.

Literally the only party that has discussed wanting to pack the Supreme Court is the Democratic Party, and they do it very consistently and time a SCOTUS ruling comes out that they don't like.

Quote:As for the SC, I chose 6 Trump loyalists for a reason, it seems Justice Thomas might already be on board. I mean, that would be embarrassing for Tadjikistan really. A wife of a SC justice engages in open subversion attempts - imho already a huge scandal in its own rights - and said judge does not have to recuse himself from related legal matters and hardly anyone seems to care about that, it's that normalized already. My trust in that branch is eroding quickly as well, for that reason and because it apparently turned into an institution just as political (and hence blindly loyal if need be) as the other two branches. Only thing possibly still missing is a majority of blind loyalists (I guess Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disappointed Trump greatly), hence the initial question.

I know folks will call me crazy for putting up a topic like this (and sure, go ahead), but I think this is all way more realistic than people would admit, or despite all conceded hyperboly at least worthy of debate. Eg. the republican party in Texas is about to pass a resolution that calls the election of Joe Biden illegitimate. And hearings discuss whether Trump knew he actually had lost? The Texas GOP doesn't want to see it that way, and I'd say almost the whole republican party does not, and a large part of their electorate. Mitch McConnell of all people apparently holds the fort, but I suppose even he is gone if Trump wins again. Other dissenters leave voluntarily or get primaried out.

Lastly, why do I care? Because that affects me in Europe as well. Hardly any of our tiny domestic topics is as important as an alliance (culturally, morally, value-wise, militarily) with the US that imho can not possibly be relied upon in good faith any longer.

I think this is a case where you have fallen victim to left wing media.  As I said above, only the Dems have discussed packing the court.  Only the Dems have discussed adding new states that would provide reliably Dem Senators.  Only the Dems have discussed abolishing the filibuster.  I have seen many left wing pundits claim that the GOP will do all those things if they ever take power, but this is classic projection on their part.  The Dems have been the party of changing the rules because they don't get the results they like under the current ones.  You could throw the Electoral College in that mix as well.  The push for these things comes entirely from them.

As for the 2020 election, that is absolutely a pure GOP position that I strongly disagree with.  But it's a major, and unsubstantiated, leap to say that this means they're for the other things we've discussed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2022, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Justices are appointed by the President. The Senate cannot appoint a Justice.

Damn, you beat me to it.  

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, because the President has to nominate new members to the court.

Yeah that was a stupid mistake on my part.
After 2024 they could, then. If Trump wins. That he is the nominee, imho, is a certainty only biology could defy.

(06-20-2022, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Literally the only party that has discussed wanting to pack the Supreme Court is the Democratic Party, and they do it very consistently and time a SCOTUS ruling comes out that they don't like.

Right, my question was rather theoretically speaking. However, I am convinced that if that were a viable way, Trump world will give it a thought at least; that, however, is of course not a fact, just a thought.
And I know the Democrats talked about expanding the court. I can very well imagine it happened on dubious grounds as well. When they thought about it after the Garland move, I even had and have sympathies for that countermove. I am aware we disagree on that.

(06-20-2022, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think this is a case where you have fallen victim to left wing media.

Ah, the basis for my whole thought process is my conviction that Trump rejects democratic principles and, bluntly put, wants to be a dictator. That is not the media painting this picture, it's the man himself giving that impression, and the party that to a large extent is blindly loyal and hence does not convincingly speak out against it.

(06-20-2022, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only the Dems have discussed adding new states that would provide reliably Dem Senators.

Yeah we strongly disagree on that as well. Not so much about the Dems motives, I guess it is just that, the chance for 2 blue senators (in a senate that overall favors the red team). But giving statehood to Puerto Rico is not a move against democracy, it is a move for democracy, imho one that a democratic society has to demand no matter the politics. What is deeply, and imho unacceptably undemocratic is to deny unblemished US citizens the right to vote. It's one of those very few things where I actually have a hard time to follow your logic.

(06-20-2022, 04:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only the Dems have discussed abolishing the filibuster.  I have seen many left wing pundits claim that the GOP will do all those things if they ever take power, but this is classic projection on their part.  The Dems have been the party of changing the rules because they don't get the results they like under the current ones.  You could throw the Electoral College in that mix as well.  The push for these things comes entirely from them.

Both parties circumvent the filibuster, I don't think that is an apt comparison to attempts like establishing fake electors or telling states to find some votes and the like. And even if it's more the Democrats. The filibuster is not an indispensable cornerstone of democracy. And neither is the electoral college. If both were gone, democracy would not cease to exist. If election results are disregarded, that's when democracy ceases to exist.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2022, 04:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that was a stupid mistake on my part.
After 2024 they could, then. If Trump wins. That he is the nominee, imho, is a certainty only biology could defy.

Any party with control of Congress and the White House could do it.  Only one party has discussed doing it and continue to discuss doing it.  As for Trump, there's a lot of time between now and '24 primary season.  I certainly hope it's not Trump and I absolutely see plausibe ways it doesn't end up being him.

Quote:Right, my question was rather theoretically speaking. However, I am convinced that if that were a viable way, Trump world will give it a thought at least; that, however, is of course not a fact, just a thought.

But that's pure speculation on your part, it's literally never been discussed by the GOP except as a negative.

Quote:And I know the Democrats talked about expanding the court. I can very well imagine it happened on dubious grounds as well. When they thought about it after the Garland move, I even had and have sympathies for that countermove. I am aware we disagree on that.

Not accurate, they continue to talk about it, not just past tense.  I said at the time the Garland move was shady, but it was also well within the rules.  Honestly, given his piss poor performance as AG McConnell may have helped us dodge a major bullet there.  But yes, it was a shady move.

Quote:Ah, the basis for my whole thought process is my conviction that Trump rejects democratic principles and, bluntly put, wants to be a dictator. That is not the media painting this picture, it's the man himself giving that impression, and the party that to a large extent is blindly loyal and hence does not convincingly speak out against it.

He does, to be sure.  But, again, you're ascribing aspirations to one party that have only been expressed by the other.  Not exactly a fair comparison.

Quote:Yeah we strongly disagree on that as well. Not so much about the Dems motives, I guess it is just that, the chance for 2 blue senators (in a senate that overall favors the red team). But giving statehood to Puerto Rico is not a move against democracy, it is a move for democracy, imho one that a democratic society has to demand no matter the politics. What is deeply, and imho unacceptably undemocratic is to deny unblemished US citizens the right to vote. It's one of those very few things where I actually have a hard time to follow your logic.

An argument could certainly be made for PR statehood, I'm just not a fan of how easy it is to admit a new state.  I'd like something between the current form and the standard for an amendment. "We want to be a state" is not sufficient reason for making any territory one.  That being said, the "D.C." statehood push is as cynical a pure power grab as this nation has ever seen.

Quote:Both parties circumvent the filibuster, I don't think that is an apt comparison to attempts like establishing fake electors or telling states to find some votes and the like.

Under certain condition, yes.  Overall, I could not disagree with you more on this, eliminating the filibuster will have far more profound and far reaching consequences than anything else we're discussing.  The filibuster prevented Trump from running amok his first two years, what do you think would have happened if his agenda was not constrained by it?  Give that a long thought and then maybe reexamine your opinion on it?  Packing SCOTUS would be a close second for me, but eliminating the filibuster would be an easy #1.

Quote:And even if it's more the Democrats. The filibuster is not an indispensable cornerstone of democracy. And neither is the electoral college. If both were gone, democracy would not stop to exist. If election results are disregarded, that's when democracy stops to exist.

To American democracy it damn sure is.  Neither were created out of thin air at a whim.  Tell you what, if the GOP takes Congress and POTUS in '24 see how many "abolish the filibuster" people suddenly STFU about it.  

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any party with control of Congress and the White House could do it.  Only one party has discussed doing it and continue to discuss doing it.

EDIT that part of my answer got swallowed somehow: What you say is not entirely true. Trump urged republicans to get rid of the filibuster several times. That he wants it is without doubt. Why senate republicans did not comply is another thing, one that possibly results in me giving McConnell some credit. Quite possibly there were too many Trump dissenters back then, Flake, McCain, Corker, Murkowski, Collins.
They're less dissenters now.

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for Trump, there's a lot of time between now and '24 primary season.  I certainly hope it's not Trump and I absolutely see plausibe ways it doesn't end up being him.

I don't. I don't see primary voters going for anyone over Trump, as imho indicated by the fact republicans still kiss his ring and no one else's. But I hope you're right (of course depending on who it is instead; if it's Josh Hawley or Don jr., then whatever).

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But that's pure speculation on your part, it's literally never been discussed by the GOP except as a negative.

Yes, pure speculation, guilty as charged. I wanted to know if there's a viable way for, again bluntly, erecting a quasi dictatorship via a move like that. It's this motivation I ascribe to Trump's republicans, not the specific moves that indeed are mere speculation.

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not accurate, they continue to talk about it, not just past tense.  I said at the time the Garland move was shady, but it was also well within the rules.

My use of past tense was not meant to establish the opposite. I'm certain folks talk about it to this day.
Now being within the rules, that's a strange criteria to me to establish a difference. Expanding the court is just as well within the rules. There's a legal way to do it, after all, only the degree of shadyness might differ. It would not be a breach of the constitution to do so, the rules allow for it just as they allowed for nuclear options or the shady Garland move.

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, given his piss poor performance as AG McConnell may have helped us dodge a major bullet there.

I agree with that assessment.

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An argument could certainly be made for PR statehood, I'm just not a fan of how easy it is to admit a new state.  I'd like something between the current form and the standard for an amendment. "We want to be a state" is not sufficient reason for making any territory one.  That being said, the "D.C." statehood push is as cynical a pure power grab as this nation has ever seen.

I don't know about DC statehood except that it makes sense in principle to me, but maybe you're right, I know too little about that complex situation. With Puerto Rico, I remain totally unmoved though. A resident without the right to vote is not a citizen and the US has no moral right to call them that without granting them the most basic right of any citizen, the right to vote and to be represented in their government.
And I have to say I find it almost cynical to be opposed to PR statehood because they lean democrat. If any other country established a new democracy where people from a certain area couldn't vote and wouldn't be represented in their parliament - and the reason given were that these people would vote a certain way - we would not call this democracy legit.

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The filibuster prevented Trump from running amok his first two years, what do you think would have happened if his agenda was not constrained by it?  Give that a long thought and then maybe reexamine your opinion on it?

I don't think I really have to, I agree with you. It would be quite possibly devastating if Republicans had done it, or if Dems do it now. Even if I were to totally trust them (which I do not) it would be extremely short-sighted. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the filibuster. But of course I see the necessity of a filibuster as the biggest problem to begin with. The filibuster is not part of the constitution, it is not established in the house (why not?), it's just a rule that anyone legally can get rid of at any time if the votes are there, and hence is a wobbly cornerstone of democracy. And yeah, I am convinced that given your current trajectory of an increasingly hostile political divide, it is only a matter of time before one party decides to get rid of it, and it might very well turn out that whoever does it first wins. And hence I think it's a fair question to ask, what if Trump does it (or Dems did it now and it falls into his lap, sure), how would that enable him in his goals. But that's not about Democrats really, except that I believe Biden would be less inclined to usurp power (and would have way less support from his party) than Trump would be.

(06-20-2022, 04:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Packing SCOTUS would be a close second for me, but eliminating the filibuster would be an easy #1.

I have to reiterate, the clear #1 to me still is disregarding election results. That's imho the essential one. Governing with simple majorities in both legislative chambers instead of just in one chamber does not come close to that, imho. Filibuster or not, you still have elections where what you did and how you ruled is judged by the people through their votes. When you can disregard that, that's the end of democracy.

[*ochocincos*]

(06-20-2022, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: First, I have a somewhat technical question about that. Could a republican majority in the senate, pretty much a certainty after the midterms and quite possibly beyond, simply pull the nuclear option, expand the court to 13 judges and put 6 strict Trump loyalists in there. I'd think they could easily do that, but I'm not certain and the internet doesn't really answer that for me.

There's a reason I ask that, imho this could be the last puzzle piece to abandon elections - or say, the necessity to care about them - altogether and establish a one-party system. The rest is pretty much apparent imho, an authoritarian president with a loyal party in the majority in both chambers could do the trick quite easily. Like just using alternate electors from now on, who in the end would stop that if the next VP is on board? Or a president that quite literally can do anything he wants, in any case no impeachment will stop him and apparently no other legal remedy is available. The constitution is levered out quite easily that way, as of yet I have not seen any possibility to stop a president doing anything if his party holds the majorities (actually, a senate majority suffices) and is with him 100%. And this is very likely the case after 2024. Trump (or someone just like him, but probably him) will run and might win, and so will his Congress minions.

As for the SC, I chose 6 Trump loyalists for a reason, it seems Justice Thomas might already be on board. I mean, that would be embarrassing for Tadjikistan really. A wife of a SC justice engages in open subversion attempts - imho already a huge scandal in its own rights - and said judge does not have to recuse himself from related legal matters and hardly anyone seems to care about that, it's that normalized already. My trust in that branch is eroding quickly as well, for that reason and because it apparently turned into an institution just as political (and hence blindly loyal if need be) as the other two branches. Only thing possibly still missing is a majority of blind loyalists (I guess Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disappointed Trump greatly), hence the initial question.

I know folks will call me crazy for putting up a topic like this (and sure, go ahead), but I think this is all way more realistic than people would admit, or despite all conceded hyperboly at least worthy of debate. Eg. the republican party in Texas is about to pass a resolution that calls the election of Joe Biden illegitimate. And hearings discuss whether Trump knew he actually had lost? The Texas GOP doesn't want to see it that way, and I'd say almost the whole republican party does not, and a large part of their electorate. Mitch McConnell of all people apparently holds the fort, but I suppose even he is gone if Trump wins again. Other dissenters leave voluntarily or get primaried out.

Lastly, why do I care? Because that affects me in Europe as well. Hardly any of our tiny domestic topics is as important as an alliance (culturally, morally, value-wise, militarily) with the US that imho can not possibly be relied upon in good faith any longer.

It's definitely looking to be possible to manipulate the US government to a point that one could essentially remove democracy.
What Trumplicans have to be aware of now is that it's not just them that get to question elections.
You better believe that if Trump (or someone affiliated with him) were to win anything moving forward, the validity would likely get questioned.
At this point, I wouldn't believe anyone affiliated with Trump would get elected without cheating outside of areas that were already heavily affiliated that way before 2021.

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 08:29 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's definitely looking to be possible to manipulate the US government to a point that one could essentially remove democracy.
What Trumplicans have to be aware of now is that it's not just them that get to question elections.
You better believe that if Trump (or someone affiliated with him) were to win anything moving forward, the validity would likely get questioned.
At this point, I wouldn't believe anyone affiliated with Trump would get elected without cheating outside of areas that were already heavily affiliated that way before 2021.

I don't quite understand. Are you saying that you would openly question an election result outside a deep red district if a Trump republican wins? Without hard evidence?

Because if so, I am not on that page. This would only validate the current Trump claims, not to mention that you would engage in the exact same method of undermining elections the GOP engages in. Mimicking the worst behaviour of the other side can not be the solution.

[Belsnickel]

(06-20-2022, 06:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know about DC statehood except that it makes sense in principle to me, but maybe you're right, I know too little about that complex situation. With Puerto Rico, I remain totally unmoved though. A resident without the right to vote is not a citizen and the US has no moral right to call them that without granting them the most basic right of any citizen, the right to vote and to be represented in their government.
And I have to say I find it almost cynical to be opposed to PR statehood because they lean democrat. If any other country established a new democracy where people from a certain area couldn't vote and wouldn't be represented in their parliament - and the reason given were that these people would vote a certain way - we would not call this democracy legit.

Honestly, DC is no different than PR. Both should be admitted as states, or given the opportunity to do so, because their citizens are not afforded the same rights and privileges as other citizens in this country. It is undemocratic for us to deny them this. The issue with DC is that it is a city that was not intended to be a residential area, but it is and so there are over four million people that are second class citizens because of where they live.

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 09:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, DC is no different than PR. Both should be admitted as states, or given the opportunity to do so, because their citizens are not afforded the same rights and privileges as other citizens in this country. It is undemocratic for us to deny them this. The issue with DC is that it is a city that was not intended to be a residential area, but it is and so there are over four million people that are second class citizens because of where they live.

Well, when you put it that way there's no way I can disagree. 

I seem to remember though there was a plan to incorporate Washington and its residents into Maryland; if the democratic party indeed dismissed that idea right away, then I might see (not necessarily agree with) SSF's point of a potential power play.

[Belsnickel]

(06-20-2022, 09:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, when you put it that way there's no way I can disagree. 

I seem to remember though there was a plan to incorporate Washington and its residents into Maryland; if the democratic party indeed dismissed that idea right away, then I might see (not necessarily agree with) SSF's point of a potential power play.

The problem is that it would take a constitutional amendment to make it so Washington could be incorporated into Maryland. Because the Constitution states that DC is to be under congressional authority, they cannot be a part of another state.

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 09:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that it would take a constitutional amendment to make it so Washington could be incorporated into Maryland. Because the Constitution states that DC is to be under congressional authority, they cannot be a part of another state.

OK that's what makes it complex. I guess statehood would be the way to go then (I just read here that this would be constitutional). Yet I will restrict myself to PR to make my general point, it's easier to handle.

[*michaelsean*]

I’ve never heard Republicans talk about it, but if they did I would be completely against it. Unlike increasing the number of representatives in Congress, adding justices has no basis except one party wanting to add justices they feel will benefit them.
Barring some unforeseen consequence, amend the constitution and add DC to Maryland or Virginia.

[hollodero]

(06-20-2022, 09:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’ve never heard Republicans talk about it

Trump did. In fairness, he said it was horrible to pack the court, but then added that "we could do that too".
Doesn't have to mean much. I just wondered if it was technically possible to outlever democracy in this manner, and as of now no one said no.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2022, 09:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that it would take a constitutional amendment to make it so Washington could be incorporated into Maryland. Because the Constitution states that DC is to be under congressional authority, they cannot be a part of another state.

I believe it also says that D.C. cannot, itself, be a state.  IIRC the workaround being discussed would be to reduce what is actually D.C. to a much smaller area and then create a state out of what is left.  Of course, this would open up the solution of making the remainder part of Maryland as well.

Hollo, I saw your post and I'll get to it tomorrow. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(06-20-2022, 04:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Justices are appointed by the President. The Senate cannot appoint a Justice.

[Belsnickel]

(06-21-2022, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe it also says that D.C. cannot, itself, be a state.  IIRC the workaround being discussed would be to reduce what is actually D.C. to a much smaller area and then create a state out of what is left.  Of course, this would open up the solution of making the remainder part of Maryland as well.

Negative. The Constitution states that DC must be under congressional authority. Now, there is a workaround that does what you state, however a state could be made that does not have its own legislation. There are some options.

[*ochocincos*]

(06-20-2022, 08:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't quite understand. Are you saying that you would openly question an election result outside a deep red district if a Trump republican wins? Without hard evidence?

Because if so, I am not on that page. This would only validate the current Trump claims, not to mention that you would engage in the exact same method of undermining elections the GOP engages in. Mimicking the worst behaviour of the other side can not be the solution.

I'm saying that if someone without proof (likely trying to cheat) has tried objecting to the election results from this past election because they didn't believe they lost, I'd have a hard time believing that same person would actually win in an area they previously lost in without cheating.

If they tried to cheat before, why would I believe their win was legitimate this time around?

I wouldn't go to the extent that these yokels did to try to overturn the results, but I would be skeptical.