Anonymous ID: 2c868d July 19, 2023, 8:20 a.m. No.19205561   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5732 >>5990 >>6137 >>6213

The Gateway Pundit

@gatewaypundit

January 6er Ronnie Sandlin Sentenced to Over Five Years in Prison After Refusing to Cooperate with Feds: Claims Inhumane Treatment and Raises Alarm About Prisoner Abuse from Correction Officers

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1681304035746545667

Anonymous ID: 2c868d July 19, 2023, 9:03 a.m. No.19205758   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5763 >>5990 >>6137 >>6213

>>19205645

And - Faithless Electors went all the way to SCOTUS for a decision from 2016.

 

On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states have the power to require presidential electors to vote for their party’s candidate for president.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that a state may require presidential electors to support the winner of its popular vote and may punish or replace those who don’t, settling a disputed issue in advance of this fall’s election.

 

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court as it considered for the first time the issue of “faithless electors” and whether the Constitution sees members of the electoral college — whose votes ultimately elect the president — as representatives of the intent of their state’s voters or as independent thinkers.

 

CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

Anonymous ID: 2c868d July 19, 2023, 9:05 a.m. No.19205763   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5990 >>6137 >>6213

>>19205758

Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther

John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton

in the 2016 presidential election. In response, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had. The Electors challenged their fines in state

court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral

College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed,

relying on Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214. In Ray, this Court upheld a

pledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up. Ray

held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our

Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether

a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions.