The plan is absolutely that votes will be cast, those votes will be collected and counted accurately and reported, and then the Republican candidate will be declared the winner.
Right, I get that part. What I’m failing to understand is, what happens next? I would expect a flood of lawsuits to follow but if the SC has already ruled that the legislature has the authority to do that, then what other avenues could the actual winner of that hypothetical election actually have? How could voters in wisconsin, or anywhere else, simply accept that? I suppose if we’re talking about a gubernatorial election the new governor could simply flood the state with law enforcement or something like the National Guard to suppress dissent and protest. But that would come with its own consequences. But Republicans probably wouldn’t give a s*** about that anyway…
The worst case scenario I can imagine is if this flips the presidential election in 24. If that happens the resulting fallout could make January 6th look like a schoolyard dust up.
IIRC, this case is about federal elections…?
As for your actual question, the discussion I’ve seen online, yes, the “actual winner” is SOL, and apparently, people will accept it for any one of the following reasons: they’re sheep, they don’t know or understand what’s going on, they don’t think they can make a difference and so aren’t willing to take major personal risks, they agree with the outcome… There are plenty.
(For that matter… under this theory, could a legislature just declare that vote counts are secret, so they could say they’re anything they want and no one would be able to prove otherwise?)
(Which reminds me: I’m still interested in the questions I asked earlier, if anyone knows answers.)
Huh, you make a good point. I have no idea and i guess i just assumed it would apply to all elections. I could very easily be wrong about that.
All of this re The Public.
There will likely be lawsuits by the candidate(s), ACLU, etc., but those take a while.
If it becomes the case that state legislatures can gerrymander and no one can challenge or force changes to the new lines drawn, then there will be no need to dump votes or any of that. The elections will be as the legislature desires.
“People are talking about it. That’s enough.”
No avenue. And how could the voters accept that? Because they would be told that the original vote tally was fraudulent, because the Democrats cheated (again), so the legislature was correcting this miscarriage of voting. Nothing to see here, look away.
The choices for the 52% of the people who voted for the other candidate are:
- accept this
- go out into the streets to protest, be labeled by the media and that same legislature as “antifa” and potentially be arrested or gunned down for being part of a “violent mob”
Well that’s just fucking depressing.
Or, they watched as fellow protestors were beaten, arrested, or even shot, and no longer see it as a personal risk but a pointless sacrifice.
Really, eh? You’re quite sure that Gorsuch and Roberts will vote the wrong way too?
Roberts post mortem memoar published in the so called Rump-US: “The reading of the constitution was quite plain, state legislatures were to be in charge of elections. Perhaps we should have acted contrary to that in the interest of preserving a nation, but how could we have foreseen that several state legislatures would deliberately take steps that would result in the end of democracy and the United States?”
Sorry; didn’t mean to overlook responding to your direct question. It’s been a busy couple of days. 
Yes, even Gorsuch and Roberts will vote the wrong way. I’m less sure of Roberts than Gorsuch, but here’s the thing:
Federalist Society adherents – among which are included Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, as well as McConnell and many other Republican members of Congress – did not spend literally billions of dollars and all of their political capital for any reason except this ruling and this moment. This is the brass ring. The whole banana. They must have this ruling in order to impose minority rule on the country once and for all.
How do you suppose John Eastman (from the Federalist Society) knew about the fake electors strategy when he tried to pull it off for Trump before the SCOTUS ruling was in place to allow it? This ruling, if allowed, simply puts a legal imprimatur on all the illegal election shenanigans Trump and his gang just tried to pull.
So yes, I believe Roberts and Gorsuch will vote for it. They’re “strict constructionists,” you know.
This case is about the GOP not having to worry about statewide Dem majorities in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arizona and even Texas if it ever gets to that point. Those urban votes will be neutralized when necessary. All of the moaning about election fraud and the ridiculous legal challenges with no evidence has been a tacit announcement of their intentions.
Also, what Aspenglow said.
I would dearly love to be wrong, but I fear I’m not.
I consider this the most dangerous case the newly-organized SCOTUS has taken up. And they’ve already shown little regard for stare decisis or, well, much of anything except their ultraconservative agenda.
Here’s how SCOTUSBlog characterized today’s arguments:
Huh, really? Roberts and Barret might side with sanity?
Decision not till next summer, but any infinitismal amount of hope is better than no.
Thanks for sharing that. I read an earlier version on the AP. It is somewhat… well, ‘encouraging’ seems too strong a word, but it does appear there is at least some resistance to upending our entire system of government.
I suspect we’ll get the softened version. It will make inroads, but it won’t go for the full monty. Not this time, anyway. Roberts is pretty worried about the Court’s Legitimacy Problem.
I understand there is also legislation being shepherded by Amy Kobuchar that will throw a wrench in the SCOTUS’s efforts if they do rule as I fear. I can’t even find which bill it is, and I only caught a little bit of the reporting on it. When I learn more, I’ll post again.
Found this from her website.
Right, I saw that, but there is actual legislation she’s working in the Senate on that will keep the SCOTUS ruling from becoming fully effective. I heard almost nothing about it so am unable to elaborate at this time. It must be completed before the end of this year, however, due to the upcoming change in House control.
That’s all I’ve got for right now.
For all I know, it’s part of the Voting Rights Act.