If Election 2020 Political Football Goes Into Overtime

 

As a political junkie, I have jested with friends and family that Presidential Elections are kind of a Superbowl for me.  Usually, the sturm und drang of a political campaign ends on election day.  In rare occasions, not so much.  Election 2000 stretched out through Thanksgiving that year due to the Florida recount. 

So when my beloved asked me how long would it be until we know who will be President next year, she was shocked when I suggested that it might be until January 4th.  What a fitting way to close out the annus horribilis of 2020.  I think that the field has been prepped for overtime in Political Fantasy Football resulting in a contested election scenario.

Granted, information may change by the hour, but on the evening after Election Day, the Democrat candidate Joseph Robinette Biden is thought to have 264 Electoral College votes, and Nevada is poised to surrender its six Electoral College votes, giving him a squeaker of a victory in the only metric which constitutionally matters.  Incumbent President Donald Trump is disputing an early call of Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes.  

If Trump carries North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania (battleground states where he is leading) and Arizona then Trump would win 274 votes and be re-elected.  Notwithstanding an outright victory, the Trump campaign has vowed to litigate against many instances of alleged voting irregularities, canvassing violations and potential fraudulent ballots for unvetted late mail in votes. Trump’s legal team has vowed to fight these violations, possibly even petitioning the US Supreme Court. 

This has the potential to impact results in key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.   If there are substantial cases, this may take time to litigate, which may delay or sway the official reporting of results.   Regardless of judicial outcome, if these violations are compelling, they may sway the process.

To refresh our civics knowledge, we do NOT live in a democracy but a Republic.  So when one casts a vote on election day for President, you are actually not voting for a Presidential candidate per se, you are voting for a slate of electors who then votes for the winning candidate in each state in the Electoral College, the ultimate party school. That’s how it normally works.  But technically, according to Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the power to name electors lies with state legislatures.  

Note well, this is a state legislature’s responsibility under federalism, which does not include input from a state Governor.  It is important to note that several battleground states with alleged voting irregularities, like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, have Republican majorities in their legislatures, despite having liberal Democrat Governors.   

It would be extraordinary, but not inconceivable, that Republican Legislatures may be convicted that voting irregularities which do not follow their legislation and would have be addressed when naming Electors for the Electoral College.  Obviously, Democrats would object to having their win overturned, so more than likely an alternative slate of Electors would attempt to be presented to the Electoral College.  And political mayhem ensues.

Presuming that the Constitution is followed, the legislature endorsed delegates would participate in the Electoral College vote on December 14th and that result would be sent to the US Senate. 

On January 3rd, the second duty of the Senate in the 117th Congress after their swearing in would be to ratify the Electoral College vote.  First vote decides the Vice President among the top two vote getters. Then the EC vote for President among the top three candidates. 

Normally, this is a pro forma vote and there is polite applause for whoever won the Election.  But in this scenario, Senators would challenge state slates of Electors.  This should be determined by a majority vote, with a tie being decided by the sitting Vice President (who is in office until January 20th).  If slates are thrown out and neither candidate gets a majority of Electors, then the contested election moves to the House of Representatives.

Even though Democrats have maintained their majority in the House, voting in a contested election is done by Representatives en banc via state.  Republicans have a 26 to 24 state majority in Congress, thus it would point to re-election of President Trump.  If there is not a majority of state delegations electing a President or Vice President by January 20th, then the Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 11th) or whoever is Speaker of the House at that time,  Acting President until the succession is determined. 

 Historically, there have been a few contested elections. In 2000, the Florida recount was settled by a Supreme Court decision in favor of George W. Bush.

 While the 1960 Presidential election was not formally disputed, the popular vote was only decided by 0.14% in favor of John Kennedy.  It is said that if 10,000 votes switched in four states, Richard Nixon would have become President in 1961. There were allegations of shenanigans in Texas and Illinois.  Moreover, there were 14 unpledged delegates in Mississippi and Alabama cast for Harry F. Byrd.  But Nixon did not want to divide the country so he did not fight. 

The 1876 Presidential Election was a quintessential case of a contested election.  Democrat Samuel Tilden won the Popular Vote but there were difficulties in the  Electoral College.  One of Oregon’s Electors was deemed ineligible as he was an elected official.  But Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana had competing Electors as each party sent slates, amounting to 19 more unresolved Electors.   To resolve this matter, Congress adopted an informal agreement known as the Compromise of 1877 which gave all 20 unresolved electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, thereby making him President.  In exchange, the federal government under Hayes withdrew Reconstruction troops that had been propping up carpet bagging state governments in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana.  

Prior to the 2020 Elections, Democrats ran an election war game of a close election.  In this simulation Democrat activist John Podesta refused to concede and extracted political promises by threatening that West Coast states, such as California, Oregon and Washington would leave the Union unless they got their way.   This obstinate political modus operandi seems to echo the extracted promises from the Compromise of 1877. 

A hypothetical overtime in political football seems pretty theoretical but strange things have happened in 2020. We may be suffering from the Chinese curse of “May you live in interesting times”, even without  Joe Biden assuming the Oval Office.

Kamala Harris on the "Trump Infection"

 

President Trump on the Kavanaugh Circus

Liberals Lament Excessive Celebration of the Kavanaugh SCOTUS Confirmation

Mitch McConnell on the Kavanuagh Confirmation

What a Blooming-thal Liar (sic)

During the extraordinary hearings for Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CN) harkened back to his days as a prosecutor as he mangled a Latin admonition given in jury instructions that: "False in one thing, false in all things".  But instead of impeaching Brett Kavanaugh, Da Nang Bloomenthal ironically impeached his own credibility.

When Richard Blumental was first running for the Senate, it was revealed that Bloomenthal had often boasted that he was a Vietnam War hero, when he had never been to Indochina during his military service.

That mendacity inspired President Donald Trump to sardonically cite the Connecticut Senator as Da Nang Richard.

If it was not invoked in such a sad situation, it would be funny. Somehow, it is unlikely that this just jibe will be satirized on Saturday Night Live. 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus indeed. 

Devin Nunes and the Collapse of the US Senate

A nadir of the Kavanaugh Circus was some Democrat Judiciary Committee members shifting their questioning of Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from uncorroborated allegations by Christine Blasey Ford to the 1983 Georgetown Prep's Yearbook. 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) obsessed about entries in Brett Kavanaugh's senior bio, including inquiries about "Renete Alumnius",  "boofing" and "the devil's triangle".

Senator Tom Cotton on FBI Background Checks

Senator Hatch: DiFi to Blame for Three Ring Fecal Festival Called the Kavanaugh Controversy

Brett Kavanaugh on the Confirmation Circus

Mitch McConnell on Good Democrat Smears

Brett Kavanaugh on Character Assassination

Michael Avenatti on Being a Democrat Fighter

Considering Michael Avenatti's 13th hour unsubstantiated claims against Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, it's no wonder that Fox New's Tucker Carlson calls this self proclaimed Democrat fighter a Creepy Porn Lawyer. Yet Avenatti thinks that he can be a viable Democrat Presidential candidate in 2020.

Jonathan Turley on Due Process

On Flouting Senate Rules

Sheldon Whitehouse on Rules

On Trump and the Courts

Hillary Clinton on the Kavanaugh Nomination to the Supreme Court

When Hillary Clinton was speaking before the American Federation of Teachers conference in Pittsburgh, she intimated that President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is an indication that Republicans want to bring back slavery.

Aside from the irony that the GOP was historically the party that ended slavery thru President Lincoln's  Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and passage of the 13th  Amendment in 1865, Hillary's hair on fire rhetoric is remarkable.

Instead of Mrs. Clinton continuing her loser tour around liberal circles which offered various excuses why she was beaten by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, she is focusing her wrath more firmly towards the rhetoric of "The Resistance".  Whether or not a old pol who profited off of insider deals, questionable charities and the aura of being an Elite can convince surging Democrat Socialists to support her is another story.

This is not the first time which Democrat operatives have sought to invoke slavery to advance their own campaign.  During the 2012 cycle, ex Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed "They want to put y'all back in chains" during a rally in Danville, Virginia (which was the last capital of the Confederacy).

It is uncertain in the era #WalkAway and record low black unemployment will work to get minorities to the polls in the midterms. 

On Turgid Constitutional Ignorance

In the alluvia of analysis and opinions which followed President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, NBC New's Katy Tur attempted to ask an insightful question.

Aside from the liberal assumption embedded in the inquiry, Tur operated with an egregious error.  The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787 not 1776. It seems that Little Katy did not grow up watching Schoolhouse Rock.



Maybe she should review the lesson as she might learn something.  

That simple mistake really costs her credibility.  So often we are inclined to impart wisdom on the pundits who pontificate on television.  If they get a basic civics fact wrong, why should we listen to them?

Although Katy Tur was awarded the 2017 Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism, I think it's  Unbelievable (sic).  That may be the title of her book with her year covering Donald Trump, but now I know better how to analyze her reportage: Progressive, propagandistic, polemic and nescient. 

Rejecting Tomi Lahren's Pink Slime Pro-Choice Perspectives

In offering analysis after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren opined that conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade are effectively spitting on the Constitution.

Lahren has been outspoken in her adherence to abortion rights.  She was separated from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze TV" last year because of her inconsistent opinions about abortion.  This was sparked by an appearance on ABC's The View in which she argued that it was hypocritical to be anti-choice and be a small government conservative.    Beck insisted that he wanted to terminate Lahren for lacking intellectual integrity.

“I can’t speak for the company and why they did it, but it had nothing to do with being pro-choice...
What I have a problem with is somebody who will change their point of view or that will say absolutely crazy, red meat things, and not have any intellectual firepower to back it up. Have the intellectual integrity to be able to back things up.”

Now Lahren laments that some conservatives want a Supreme Court to carry out religious judicial activism to get rid of Roe v. Wade (1973).  Tantalizing pro-choice red meat but it like the pink slime substitute which some fast food outlets use to sell dollar menu items to a hungry public even though it causes indigestion.

Lahren assumes that any rollback of Roe would be premised on religious issues.  Even the Roe decision recognizes that government has interests in unborn life in the last trimester that is viable.  Prenatal medicine has made great leaps of advancement so viability is pushed closer to the 20th week of pregnancy.  No signs of religion in this hermaneutic. And that does not even consider the scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception

Pro-Choice jurisprudence currently rests on the shaky foundation of abortion as being included in a right to privacy that is within  penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, as applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Justice Blackmun's holding in Roe is a quintessential example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench for the entire nation.

Conceptually, a texualist originalist led Supreme Court could rule that "the right to privacy" is not enumerated within the Federal Constitution and that the Tenth Amendment is applicable.  This would throw the abortion issue back to the states, where it resided prior to the 1973 judicial fiat.  Some states, like California and New York, would have liberal abortion laws, while other states may be more restrictive.   That sort of subsidiary jurisprudence sounds like small government conservatism.

Maybe Lahren's political science studies at UNLV did not adequately cover jurisprudence.  She seems to think that it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overrule bad precedent or is judicial activism.   In his confirmation hearing to become Chief Justice in 2005, John Roberts noted that stare decisis does not hold as a legal precedent when a matter was wrongly decided.  But in Tomi Lahren's legal logic, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that overturned the Separate but Equal standard of  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was just spitting on the Constitution too. 

It is lamentable that Fox News turns to Tomi Lahren for legal analysis.  In little more than a year, she has shifted her abortion rights advocacy from being premised on what she believes is small government conservatism to combating religious judicial activism.  No wonder she burned her bridge at The Blaze TV for lacking intellectual integrity. 

Some may want to consume pink slime perspectives because they are spicy tasty morsel temptations, but assuredly many leave the establishment when such dreck is  seen on the television menu.