PR firm behind "faithless electors" tied to Clinton and Obama
A federal judge dealt a deathblow to “faithless electors” who challenged Colorado’s law requiring electors to vote for the candidate who won the state’s popular vote in November.
A lawsuit was brought forward to set a legal precedent across the United States, unbinding electors from their requirement to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their respective states in order to convince enough electors to switch their vote for Hillary Clinton or an establishment Republican, stealing the election from Donald Trump.
United States District Judge Wiley Daniel denied the injunction request from Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, two Colorado electors who argued that the law binding their vote to Hillary Clinton, the state’s popular vote winner, violated their First Amendment rights and the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
More
Democrats have really shown their true colors this election.They have no integrity and are willing to do anything
ReplyDeleteIf you job is to vote how the people tell you to vote, then you do it. If you think that infringes upon your first amendment right, get a new job. It is the job of the courts to interpret the Constitution. If they were allowed to change their electoral votes to a candidate who did not win the popular vote in their area, they would not be representing the people's choice and democracy would collapse. More than it already has.
ReplyDeleteThat judge did the right thing.
ReplyDeleteHe decided as he should. If you're an elector you're bound by law to vote the way your state has decided your vote should be cast. If you live in a state where you're free to vote for whomever, then do so. If you live in a state that requires you to vote for the winner of your state, then do so. What an irritating side show this has been.
ReplyDeleteLaw is law. The Electors must vote the way their state directed. There is no grey area.
ReplyDelete