At this point rachel needs to dedicate a full show to clarify this bullshit

[jorgevlorgan]

People are freaking out way too much. It isn't good.

[Thekaspervote]

1. Yes.. if you unroll this, piece by piece, state by state and law by law..there's no way!

[jorgevlorgan]

4. Yeah

I mean, sure we should probably amend that when we get the chance, but it has almost no practical standing in our elections or legal norms.

[Blue Owl]

2. Trump is probably sitting on his fucking gold toilet grinning

[BannonsLiver]

3. The pants shitting over the last few hours has been spectacular

Had no idea so many were so soft.

[Sogo]

5. Hell, yes!

I am a major fan of hers, but I really believe her show tonight was rushed and needed a lot of deliberation before pulling the trigger on it, because "trigger" it did!

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Why Rachel? There are plenty of places talking about it. Including Vanity Fair, where this started.

[Nexus2]

12. Yeah

I've seen reporting on this in a few places. Maddow's has been the more thorough so far though.

[dem4decades]

7. Is she talking about 20 foot spiders again?

[BlueLucy]

8. Sticking your head in the sand isn't good either.

Trump is a massive threat and people need to be warned.

[jorgevlorgan]

9. But thinking he has more power than he does is far worse.

If we start to believe laws don't exist to prevent this, then the laws that exist will cease to matter.

[Frasier Balzov]

10. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...

State legislatures appoint their Presidential electors.

It is only by virtue of their regard for the integrity of the popular vote in their state that their appointments reflect the popular vote.

Trump has been attempting to give cover to Republican controlled state legislatures to find that the popular vote in their state is faulty, and that Trump electors should be appointed instead.

[jorgevlorgan]

11. No. The appointments of the electors are based on whatever state law exists.

So far there is no state that allows the erroneous appointment of electors by the legislature. Doing so would be blatantly breaking their state laws.

In addition to that, it is not possible for state laws to be changed in enough states for Trump to steal the election given the party make up of the states in a Biden landslide election.

[Frasier Balzov]

14. That's where SCOTUS matters.

Will SCOTUS require a state legislature to follow state election law when the U.S. Constitution gives them a plenary power to act in the present circumstance.

"Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated."

MacPherson v. Blacker cited in Bush v. Gore.

[jorgevlorgan]

16. That would only matter if the election were up to one state again

It would be much harder to try to throw out 150 years of state laws and completely invalidate the votes of hundreds of millions of people. With the court's recent unanimous decisions on allowing states to decide their election laws, and leaving important election decisions up to the state, it doesn't seem quite feasible for them to even take up a case involving a landslide victory for a candidate and throw 150 years (at least?) of determining the electoral winner by popular vote of the state, completely out the window over night.

[Frasier Balzov]

18. The consolidated cases SCOTUS would be asked to take up

would be ones in which Joe Biden has won the popular vote in states where those legislatures choose to appoint Trump electors instead.

I don't see on what basis the Justices can overrule state legislatures exercising a plenary power afforded to them by the U.S. Constitution.

The decision denying Biden relief would predictably say that the remedy is for the voters of those states to gradually replace their legislators if displeased with the practices being followed in the appointment of electors.

Such a majority opinion, although infuriating, would nevertheless be correct on the grounds of precedent interpreting this point of Constitutional law.

[jorgevlorgan]

19. How bout on the basis that it is against state law and 150 years of

Precedent, and against the constitutional provision that states run their own elections and make their own decisions. If the governor of the state and the state supreme court are against such an action, then precedent would side with these states ability to run their elections and follow their own law.

[Hekate]

13. It's 38 minutes into her show & she sounds perfectly rational to me

Not meltdown
Not hysterical
Not far-fetched
Not at all improbable

[jorgevlorgan]

17. It's her fans that are freaking out

[PSPS]

15. All the media is just going for broke with these wild fictional narratives.

[betsuni]

20. Could people please specify what the topic is?

Is this too much to ask?

[smirkymonkey]

21. Thank you, betsuni!

Why does everyone here assume that we are all glued to cable television at every moment?

Jeeze!

[betsuni]

24. Right?

And some members aren't in the U.S.! This was the second OP about Rachel I saw without any context. Have to rummage around the internet until it comes online. Sigh.

[RhodeIslandOne]

22. "He can't do that!!!!"

How many times have we said this?

[octoberlib]

23. I believe it has a voter suppression effect.

Some people might think why bother to vote, Trump’s just gonna steal the election anyway. It’s almost like the media is trying to hype it into reality.

[OnDoutside]

25. The only issue would be in Battleground States controlled by Republicans ?