Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

libtodeath

(2,892 posts) Sat Dec 10, 2016, 12:26 PM Dec 2016

0

A scotus justice intervened in 2000 for shrub so why cant one now for the rights of voters

in California,New York or Illinois?

With the news of the Russian hack of our election couldnt one of the justices that oversee a blue state order a halt to the EC voting until more investigation is done?

Cross posting this from GD.

We only have a few days left.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A scotus justice intervened in 2000 for shrub so why cant one now for the rights of voters (Original Post) libtodeath Dec 2016 OP

Courts don't just "intervene" jberryhill Dec 2016 #1

Right,so cant the Clinton or Stein campaign petition them? libtodeath Dec 2016 #3

It's not quite as simple as that jberryhill Dec 2016 #7

For what? mythology Dec 2016 #8

I have decided that you are the best person to sweetapogee Dec 2016 #9

Obvious answer HassleCat Dec 2016 #2

I believe that is what will happen. putitinD Dec 2016 #4

I am hoping and why President Obama did what he did yesterday about cyberhacking. libtodeath Dec 2016 #5

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2016 #6

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

1. Courts don't just "intervene"

Reply to libtodeath (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 12:27 PM

Dec 2016

They rule on cases brought before them by the litigants.

libtodeath

(2,892 posts)

3. Right,so cant the Clinton or Stein campaign petition them?

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 12:29 PM

Dec 2016

How about the ACLU representing disenfranchised voters in blue states?

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

7. It's not quite as simple as that

Reply to libtodeath (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 08:32 PM

Dec 2016

mythology

(9,527 posts)

8. For what?

Reply to libtodeath (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 09:35 PM

Dec 2016

The process for determining the president is clear. Why would you think it's suddenly unconstitutional? That makes no sense.

sweetapogee

(1,173 posts)

9. I have decided that you are the best person to

Reply to libtodeath (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 10:45 PM

Dec 2016

take this case to the SC.

Do it.

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)

2. Obvious answer

Reply to libtodeath (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 12:29 PM

Dec 2016

Because the Supremes exist to make sure the downtrodden cannot threaten the privileged.

putitinD

(1,551 posts)

4. I believe that is what will happen.

Reply to libtodeath (Original post)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 12:29 PM

Dec 2016

libtodeath

(2,892 posts)

5. I am hoping and why President Obama did what he did yesterday about cyberhacking.

Reply to putitinD (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 12:36 PM

Dec 2016

uponit7771

(91,756 posts)

6. +1

Reply to putitinD (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 10, 2016, 03:43 PM

Dec 2016

Reply to this discussion

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»A scotus justice interven...