Senator Josh Hawley Announces Intent to Challenge Electoral Vote Count

[djBuffoon 12,239]

This is what they call political theatre, nothing more. All it’s doing is saying to Trump’s sycophantic supporters, “See? I did something to try and stop Biden. Vote for me!”

Pathetic, and it will come back to haunt him. 

[djBuffoon 12,239]

9 hours ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Democrats tried this in 2016 too. Let's not act high and mighty now. 

Nope. Hillary conceded within hours, the transfer of power begin within days, and it was unanimously acknowledged that Trump was the President-elect. 

Neither Obama nor Clinton filed frivolous lawsuits or attempted to question the legitimacy of the outcome, and that was with the knowledge of Russian interference. 
 

No comparison. 

[PunkTheFunk 125,734]

43 minutes ago, djBuffoon said:

Nope. Hillary conceded within hours, the transfer of power begin within days, and it was unanimously acknowledged that Trump was the President-elect. 

Neither Obama nor Clinton filed frivolous lawsuits or attempted to question the legitimacy of the outcome, and that was with the knowledge of Russian interference. 
 

No comparison. 

Yup, when I said Democrats tried "this" I was referring to the topic of discussion in this thread, which is challenging the electoral vote in Congress.

[uo111 5,285]

10 hours ago, JRCF29 said:

That would mean Reps. Raskin, Jayapal, and Waters would be gone as well, since they objected in 2017. 

 

Well, he said specifically “attempts to destroy democracy.”

Considering Hillary won by millions of votes, anyone who objected in 2016 was actually attempting to uphold democracy. 

[JRCF29 8,230]

53 minutes ago, djBuffoon said:

Nope. Hillary conceded within hours, the transfer of power begin within days, and it was unanimously acknowledged that Trump was the President-elect. 

Neither Obama nor Clinton filed frivolous lawsuits or attempted to question the legitimacy of the outcome, and that was with the knowledge of Russian interference. 
 

No comparison. 

Just like other users of this site, you've made an attempt to deliberately address an argument no one is making. 

There is no way to objectively reach the conclusion that Democrats did not try to do the same thing that they are now criticizing Trump for doing. You can say that Hillary conceded; you can say that the claims weren't as widely supported by the party; you can say that there were no lawsuits filed. OK.

But what's in reference now are specific actions by specific people, and members of the Democratic Party 100% cast doubt on the validity of the certified vote totals and made claims that the election process by which Donald Trump was elected was less than legitimate. 

Now, many of these same representatives, along with people who supported them in 2017, are loudly calling Trump and his allies on the Hill a traitor for doing the same thing. I'm not defending it in either case. But to not see any similarity whatsoever in the principle, regardless of scope, magnitude, etc.? I don't buy it

The following is a list of Representatives who raised objections to the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2017:

Rep. Raskin of Maryland

Rep. Jayapal of Washington

Rep. Waters of California

Rep. Barbara Lee of California

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas

Rep. McGovern of Massachusetts 

Rep. Grijalva of Arizona

 

Source

 

 

[JRCF29 8,230]

6 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Well, he said specifically “attempts to destroy democracy.”

Considering Hillary won by millions of votes, anyone who objected in 2016 was actually attempting to uphold democracy. 

The United States is not and has never been a direct democracy.

[uo111 5,285]

16 minutes ago, JRCF29 said:

The United States is not and has never been a direct democracy.

What’s your point? 

[bionic 50,112]

8 hours ago, JRCF29 said:

What was so different about the vote counts then, though, that they would be excused for doing the same thing you're now calling for Hawley's expulsion over?

Its 2 congresses later

[bionic 50,112]

4 hours ago, uo111 said:

What’s your point? 

Trying to tell Congress to follow the popular vote would be asking Congress to violate the constitution. 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Performative. 

They need a simple majority from both Houses to throw out a state's EC votes. However, there are literally thousands, maybe millions of Trump supporters who have convinced themselves that Pence will declare Trump the winner on Jan 6th. Its insane. 

[uo111 5,285]

2 hours ago, bionic said:

Trying to tell Congress to follow the popular vote would be asking Congress to violate the constitution. 

I’m still trying to find a point here. When the constitution is wrong, it’s wrong. 
 

Also, I may be wrong but I don’t think the constitution requires electors to vote one way or another.

[bionic 50,112]

27 minutes ago, uo111 said:

I’m still trying to find a point here. When the constitution is wrong, it’s wrong. 
 

Also, I may be wrong but I don’t think the constitution requires electors to vote one way or another.

Totally agree that the Electoral College is outdated and doesn't make much sense in the year of our Lord 2020, but thats the way it is sadly. I'd support a constitutional amendment to change this but there isn't much appetite in Congress.

The Constitution requires states select electors and delegates responsibility to the state for how they're assigned (which is why Nebraska and Maine have split delegations). So I guess it would really come down to what the Supreme Court thinks  

[JRCF29 8,230]

5 hours ago, bionic said:

So I guess it would really come down to what the Supreme Court thinks  

There has been a push in the past five years or so for states to sign onto the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC). 

It would require participating states' electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of the vote totals in their own state. The NPVC can only come into effect when states making up 270+ electoral votes have signed on. Theoretically, the Supreme Court could hear a case about this within the next couple of terms, and I would imagine they would vote hear the case because it would in all likelihood be a state(s) suing another state(s) and there would be no other form of judicial intervention available. Edit: Even though SCOTUS declined to hear Texas' suit on other states' voting procedures this month, this case would be different in that it would not have anything to do with the way in which elections themselves are conducted, but the way in which electoral votes are awarded. The Electoral College makes an appearance in the Constitution and is the prescribed method of election nationwide, while other such items (e.g mail-in ballots) fall under the jurisdiction of state statute. 

It will be interesting to see how the new Census counts play into this, if at all, and it will also be interesting to see if the next Congress shows any interest in advancing a Constitutional amendment to the same effect (which would obviously negate the need for a SCOTUS ruling on the NPVC). Spoiler: The next Congress will not show any interest.

 

[bionic 50,112]

This is a hilarious update

 

[MOT 3,661]

16 hours ago, JRCF29 said:

Just like other users of this site, you've made an attempt to deliberately address an argument no one is making. 

There is no way to objectively reach the conclusion that Democrats did not try to do the same thing that they are now criticizing Trump for doing. You can say that Hillary conceded; you can say that the claims weren't as widely supported by the party; you can say that there were no lawsuits filed. OK.

But what's in reference now are specific actions by specific people, and members of the Democratic Party 100% cast doubt on the validity of the certified vote totals and made claims that the election process by which Donald Trump was elected was less than legitimate. 

Now, many of these same representatives, along with people who supported them in 2017, are loudly calling Trump and his allies on the Hill a traitor for doing the same thing. I'm not defending it in either case. But to not see any similarity whatsoever in the principle, regardless of scope, magnitude, etc.? I don't buy it

The following is a list of Representatives who raised objections to the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2017:

Rep. Raskin of Maryland

Rep. Jayapal of Washington

Rep. Waters of California

Rep. Barbara Lee of California

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas

Rep. McGovern of Massachusetts 

Rep. Grijalva of Arizona

 

Source

 

 

As a non-American I know nothing about this, but I am interested in it. May I ask what was the basis of the Democrats' objections in 2017 ?

Also, I understand that Hawley and co have no chance of succeeding because they don't have the numbers in the house, but was that also the case in 2017 or was there an actual possibility that they would overturn ?