Texas sues to have the state legislatures appoint the electors

[Xan]

Do any of you geezers currently have kids in public school, or are just back in your rocking chairs spouting the tired "I remember when it was better in the old days" BS?

One kid in high school, one graduated two years ago. Both have/are taking AP World History, AP US History, AP US Government. My youngest is in a mock trial club. They watch and read the news (yeah, ok, not right wing stuff!)

40+ hours AP credits each. 34 and 35 ACT scores. Above A GPAs. Notre Dame. Who knows with the younger.

All preceded by 12 years of public education in, gasp, Illinois.

Do I believe educational opportunities are bad in certain areas, say parts of Chicago? Sure.

But there seem to be blanket assertions here that the whole system sucks. It does not.

A system that sucks can have good outcomes, perhaps at far too high a cost.

A system that sucks can have good outcomes for some people and not for others.

A system that sucks can produce good outcomes with bad side effects.

[glennds]

I'm 100% behind the idea of teaching more civics. But the idea of teaching more civics is itself an opinion, is it not? A value?

Well if the choice of any curriculum content is opinion, then yes I guess you're right.
The way I like to think of it is an education in civics (or history, or whatever) is a foundation from which hopefully the student can form better, informed opinions.

Look at what's going on around us, people are forming opinions about politics and government without an apparent foundational knowledge of how the government is structured, how it is supposed to work (at least in theory), how it came to be, and what the original intentions were, how and why it evolved at certain points in history. I think the Supreme Court's role is highly misunderstood in many people's minds.

I totally agree with you and others that subjectivity in education is counter-productive, the goal should be to provide information as objectively and factually as possible. I know, this is easier to accomplish in math and applied science than it is in social science and liberal arts, but still objectivity should be the goal.

It's tough. These days, fad trends like woke culture, and me-too are ending up interjected into the educational curriculum. Not to say a given student shouldn't ultimately choose to identify with those movements, but that should be their path, not a predetermined path for the education system to put them on.

[Cortopassi]

Do any of you geezers currently have kids in public school, or are just back in your rocking chairs spouting the tired "I remember when it was better in the old days" BS?

One kid in high school, one graduated two years ago. Both have/are taking AP World History, AP US History, AP US Government. My youngest is in a mock trial club. They watch and read the news (yeah, ok, not right wing stuff!)

40+ hours AP credits each. 34 and 35 ACT scores. Above A GPAs. Notre Dame. Who knows with the younger.

All preceded by 12 years of public education in, gasp, Illinois.

Do I believe educational opportunities are bad in certain areas, say parts of Chicago? Sure.

But there seem to be blanket assertions here that the whole system sucks. It does not.

A system that sucks can have good outcomes, perhaps at far too high a cost.

A system that sucks can have good outcomes for some people and not for others.

A system that sucks can produce good outcomes with bad side effects.

Sure.

I'm just tired of black and white becoming the only two damn positions anyone seems to take anymore. No shades of gray. No middle.

It is so hard to really tell on postings if people really have such hard set positions. I would like to think most everyone, in person, generally fall in the middle of the road mostly, but you'd never know it from some of these topic discussions.

And there are those who like to just tweak people in their responses, or make comments that you'd have to take as a joke or sarcasm on their face, because if that's really their position, they are off the rails.

[Mark Leavy]

The States have filed their responses.

Pennsylvania
Georgia
Michigan
Wisconsin

[Libertarian666]

Thanks for the link, Xan! No I didn't know about the Falun Gong link. I'm quite sympathetic to that group....they are a bit cult-like but it's not unlike many small US churches that operate freely and openly here, and they have been most vocal about China's human rights abuses. We could certainly use their influence here in the US, as we appear to be going down the same path.

And, the article explains why they want email addresses. It would be great if they displaced Breitbart as the flagship conservative paper, along with the NY Post. Breitbart is more of a hindrance than help, frankly.

I agree that Breitbart isn't very useful anymore.

I am now going to the following sources for actual news and analysis instead of communist propaganda:

The Gateway Pundit (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/)
The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/)
Just The News (https://justthenews.com/)
Bongino Report (https://bonginoreport.com/)
American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/)

I put American Thinker into the "more hindrance than help" category. I thought the articles were good at first, but they are brimming with obvious factual errors and misinterpretations that look intentional. I quit them and have been reading American Conservative instead.

I hope one or two sources emerge as dominant, become widely read, and start offering serious competition to CNN, NYT, WaPo etc. We badly need reasonable-sounding conservative voices to counter the endless drumbeat from the far-left media.

I actually haven't read too much in American Thinker, so it's possible you are right that they aren't very helpful overall. The articles I have read seem pretty good but there haven't been that many of them.

[Libertarian666]

The States have filed their responses.

Pennsylvania
Georgia
Michigan
Wisconsin

It's obvious that Texas has the right of it. The only question is whether the Court is compromised to such an extent that they can ignore the plain language of the Constitution.
We'll know soon.

[Cortopassi]

The States have filed their responses.

Pennsylvania
Georgia
Michigan
Wisconsin

It's obvious that Texas has the right of it. The only question is whether the Court is compromised to such an extent that they can ignore the plain language of the Constitution.
We'll know soon.

Obvious of course.

Compromised. Hmmm. Guardians of the republic and freedom...but only if they decide correctly.

Pretty soon there's going to be no one left to throw under the bus except Trump himself.

[I Shrugged]

I’ll take the defendants and lay the 10 points.

I’d enjoy a Texas win but it won’t happen. I think they’ll rule that Texas doesn’t have standing.

[Mark Leavy]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

[doodle]

Perhaps Paxton is just angling for a pardon

Paxton has been under indictment since 2015 on securities fraud charges relating to activities prior to taking office; he has pleaded not guilty. In October 2020, several high-level assistants in Paxton's office made allegations accusing him of "bribery, abuse of office and other crimes".

[I Shrugged]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

[yankees60]

They should not be teaching opinion of any kind in public schools. There's nothing wrong with personal opinion, as you note, it just doesn't have any place in publicly funded institutions: school, government, etc. Who's to say which opinions are correct?

Maybe if they wasted less time on the PC nonsense, they'd have more time for an actual curriculum?

Otherwise, good post and +1

I don't think there's any way to excise opinion, culture, and values from many things. For the DMV, for example, maybe so. Very limited scope and function. For schools? I don't think there's such a thing as value-neutral.

I'm 100% behind the idea of teaching more civics. But the idea of teaching more civics is itself an opinion, is it not? A value?

The way to have value-neutral public schools is to not have public schools. And I'm more and more convinced that this is a better way. Fund education by attaching money to each child, to go to whatever school the parents select. Sell the school buildings to private entities. Let them compete. Let's see what happens.

the way to excise opinion from education is to start with teaching critical thinking. " grammar, logic, and rhetoric "
then opinion wont mater because the listener can run it through that matrix... grammar ( who what where when and cite-able quality sources) logic (the valid rules of inference) and rhetoric (the ability to share/teach and the creative application of that knowledge)
+1 for teaching American civics, a good friend of mine found a 1940's? civics text book in a thrift store.. it was nothing like a modern text book, it became a prized possession that he intended to use to supplement his kids public school education..

How many here took a civics class and in what grade?

I was a high school senior in 1968-1969. For one class, half the year was economics while I think the other half was government. It was during the latter that the teacher required me and another student to read Eldridge Cleaver's book Soul on Ice. A fairly heavy duty book to read as a 17 year old and the first of its type that I'd ever read. It would have been close to the same time that I was apathetic about the Nixon / Humphrey 1968 election.

[SomeDude]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

If the Supreme court rules that the republican state legislators in these states can throw out the illegal ballots or otherwise exercise independence in selecting electors.....don't you think that will give them the political cover they need? If the Supreme decision confirms their authority, they would be clear of any legal action the dems and "disenfranchised voters" could bring against them.

[glennds]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

If the Supreme court rules that the republican state legislators in these states can throw out the illegal ballots or otherwise exercise independence in selecting electors.....don't you think that will give them the political cover they need? If the Supreme decision confirms their authority, they would be clear of any legal action the dems and "disenfranchised voters" could bring against them.

Equal protection clause......

[Libertarian666]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The exact issue is that the legislators WERE NOT CONSULTED. The executive and judicial branch officials disregarded laws passed by the legislature.

Thus, it is not in fact true that the legislatures "chose to do nothing". They did what they are supposed to do: pass laws. The ones who didn't do what they were supposed to do is those who disregarded those laws.

Hope that helps.

[Libertarian666]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

Yes, exactly. I think they must be feeling immense pressure to take the case.

[Libertarian666]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

If the Supreme court rules that the republican state legislators in these states can throw out the illegal ballots or otherwise exercise independence in selecting electors.....don't you think that will give them the political cover they need? If the Supreme decision confirms their authority, they would be clear of any legal action the dems and "disenfranchised voters" could bring against them.

Yes, what the Supremes should do is tell the states "You will do whatever is necessary to call the legislature into session so they can decide how the electors shall be chosen. Then it's up to them, so long as they do it Constitutionally (e.g., discarding illegal votes, selecting the electors themselves)".

[I Shrugged]

I'm hoping the court at least agrees to take it up. With almost all of the states having thrown their hats into the ring for one side or the other, it seems like exactly the kind of dispute that the Supreme Court was setup to resolve.

If they take it, I think the ruling will be along the lines of, “the defendants legislatures already have the means and free will to police the matter. Whether or not they do is up to them. If they choose to do nothing, that’s their right, and regardless, your Texas electors are not diminished.”

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The exact issue is that the legislators WERE NOT CONSULTED. The executive and judicial branch officials disregarded laws passed by the legislature.

Thus, it is not in fact true that the legislatures "chose to do nothing". They did what they are supposed to do: pass laws. The ones who didn't do what they were supposed to do is those who disregarded those laws.

Hope that helps.

What’s stopping the legislatures from exerting their authority?
By the way, I can see why people here are getting annoyed with you. You and I share the same basics beliefs, yet if I say something you don’t care for, you feel the need to say jackass things like I’m not paying attention. I’ll leave it at that.

[Cortopassi]

By the way, I can see why people here are getting annoyed with you. You and I share the same basics beliefs, yet if I say something you don’t care for, you feel the need to say jackass things like I’m not paying attention. I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you. I am perfectly fine with sharing different beliefs and not needing to get jackassy about them. That's why lately for the most part I am hanging back not responding and just watching. But every now and then I get the urge.

[Xan]

Tech, they're making good points. Would you tone it down? You're welcome to have your opinion of course, but you do tend to belittle anybody who hasn't reached exactly all your conclusions, and it isn't really appropriate here.

Maybe some more "here's how I see it" and less "here's a proclamation from on high; hope this helps".

[pmward]

Tech, they're making good points. Would you tone it down? You're welcome to have your opinion of course, but you do tend to belittle anybody who hasn't reached exactly all your conclusions, and it isn't really appropriate here.

Maybe some more "here's how I see it" and less "here's a proclamation from on high; hope this helps".

Thank you Xan.

[pmward]

What is the greater evil, a state going against its own law in a time of emergency without consulting the legislature? Or millions of people's right to vote being thrown out? How on earth is denying millions of people's right to vote fair recompense for a state going against its policies in a time of emergency? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. Is it even legal to deny all of these citizens right to vote? And why would anyone want to throw these legal registered voters votes out? Doesn't this go against the very spirit of democracy and election? Is this not against the constitution? How would Republicans feel if it were Republican counties being thrown out? Would Republicans be as happy to have their right to vote taken away as they are with the idea of Democrats right to vote being taken away?

[Mountaineer]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

[pmward]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

[Xan]

Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.

The thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.

One problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.