Should Republican state legislatures appoint Trump electors regardless?

I'm not a Republican, and I've been fighting against our nations descent into oligarchical rule for decades.

Back in the 90's I didn't think we'd make it past 2020, but after 9/11 I moved that date back to 2030.

So even if Trump wins, and he still could, I don't expect America to survive much longer regardless.

Bidens election simply moves the calendar up. We're almost $30 trillion in debt now - Biden's plan is to ramp that up significantly; while expanding government and corporate control over the people.

In 4 years, at current rates, the debt will be at about $50 trillion - not only that, social security and Medicare will be operating in the red.

Throw on top of that nasty cocktail "The Green New Deal"?? And you have a recipe for complete collapse.

Not to worry though... the collapse is intentional and will be blamed on Trump and greedy Republicans. CNN will tell you what to think

 

Wow, such a cynic.

I'm 69, and when I was 14 (1965), my older sister's boyfriend was telling me exactly what you are saying
Fast forward to '73, a book was published, 'the depression that is surely coming' it was predicting collapse and soon.
Round about 2yk, many similar predictions, and I had another book predicting the collapse of the dollar.
In fact, hardly a year passes where I don't get this sky is falling line from someone, but it never happens.
Maybe you're right, I dunno, but if past is prologue, I'm not going to worry about it. We'll all be in the same boat,
and it's happened to other nations and they got through it.

 

Better yet, unconstitutional. The state legislature has the plenary and sole power to make or change election law, not the courts or the mayors or the governor. Basic civics.

 

Depends on the state's constitution. In Smiley v. Holm and Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant explains that the governor, indeed, is part of the legislative process if the state's constitution grants it. To be more accurate, I meant 'not illegal, per se' in the sense that, not to completely override a state law, but something like extending a mail in deadline by 3 days by the governor, because of the compelling concern for public safety owing to covid, depending on the state's constitution, it could be allowed. Due to the extenuating circumstance, the SCOTUS might allow it, regardless of the states' constitution ( but, I really don't know). Thing is, why republicans are nitpicking over 3 days, is beyond me, because of covid, it sounds reasonable and just, it's as if republicans can't stand the idea of more votes coming in. Oh, that's right, more votes means diminished chances of winning. That explains why they nitpick.

 

Uh no what? The Baca case wasn't a case in 2016.

 

Well, the one before SCOTUS regarding PA is a constitutional issue. The lower court said the litigants would probably win on merit but the state Supreme Court that issued the changes in the first place stepped in and dismissed on a procedural issue without hearing the case claiming laches, brought too late. The courts own precedent counters the courts decision since they heard the redistricting issue 6 years later and multiple elections later and made a decision.

SCOTUS has to take the Texas case against MI, GA, PA, and WI since SCOTUS acts like a trial court in cases between states. This case is like an illegal vote disenfranchises a legal vote but between electors. Texas followed their constitution and these other states didn’t.

 

Today is safe harbor, too late.

 

Procedural, not constitutional. The only real date that is significant is when the electors meet in January.

 

Name one election where safe harbor certification on December 8 didn't result in the president elect being inaugurated?

There's a reason December 8 is called 'safe harbor'.

It means Donald Trump is NOT going to be president.

 

Yet it is not in the constitution.

 

Name one candidate whose electors were certified on the safe harbor date who wasn't inaugurated on Jan 20..

I'll be waiting.

 

Show me where that exists in law or the constitution.

 

Not at issue. You are implying that if it isn't in the constitution, there is a chance Trump will be president.

Sorry, after safe harbor, there is no chance, constitution or not.

History and tradition dictates this fact.

 

It doesn't matter.

Trump LOST. End of story.