Way better than fox.
Posted on 11/07/2020 10:43:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Spicer and Halpern (sp?) were very pessimistic/negative today.
Someone said the people speaking on behalf of Trump such as Rudy and Cory were the wrong people, need people who the media likes rather than dislikes (my words as I can’t remember the exact quotes.)
I turned NewsMax off when the negativity began.
Weekends they have different programming on. Try America’s Voice as it is on live in the morning where I live and then again late at night, I think about 10PM MST.
Way better than fox.
It is and Diamond and Silk are also on every weekend.
OANN is the best for Voter Fraud coverage - it’s almost 24/7
that’s all fine but unfortunately nothing else is, including the courts which is the ultimate power in this dispute....I hope I’m wrong......
GOOD!!! Maybe Chris Ruddy can steal some talent like Greg, Jesse and Mark from FoxSnooze
I changed to NewsMax.
JoMa
Tucker too!!!
They are headed to the top.faux shite the bed
If SCOTUS turns over votes in PA. arriving AFTER Nov 3rd 8:00 pm this is a huge difference!! It is past 2:00 pm did PA. respond???
We can only hope at this point...
But, it was Friday...yesterday, it was scheduled for 10pm and wasn’t there. I’ll try again on Monday.
Tucker too!!!
Of course! I knew there was someone I was forgetting.....thanks :)
I know. Next time if that happens, try America’s Voice.
OAN is the best right now.
Thus the situation as it stands is that there is still a petition before the Supreme Court to review the situation in Pennsylvania, it just refused to do so before the election.
Now that raises the question: What’s the situation in Pennsylvania? Let’s work through that.
In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but (in Justice Alito’s words) “unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day.” The exact text is 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, which stated: “No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.” I agree with Justice Alito: That is unambiguous.
Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was invalidated, that much of the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would also be void. The exact text is: “Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.”
To again put this into common English, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that said mail-in ballots had to arrive by 8PM on election day to be counted, and then said that if the Court over-ruled that law, the entire law that permitted mail-in ballots was invalid.
In the face of this clear text, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, made the following decrees, summarized here by SCOTUS:
Mailed ballots don’t need to be received by a election day. Instead, ballots can be accepted if they are postmarked on or before election day and are received within three days thereafter. Note that this is directly contravenes the text above.
A mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date.
In doing so, PAs’ high court expressly acknowledged that “the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous” and conceded the law was “constitutional,” but still re-wrote the law because it thought it needed to do so in the face of a “natural disaster.” It justified its right to do so under the Free and Equal Elections Cause of the PA State Constitution.
.
.
.
There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. Justice Alito writes: “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”
Justice Alito is referring to the following clauses of the US Constitution:
Art. I, §4, cl. 1, which states “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
Art. II, §1, cl. 2, which states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Again, translating this into common English, the US Constitution grants state legislators the exclusive right to prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections, and to direct the appointment of the electors.
= = = = = =
If Pennsylvania mixed the ballots, (*smirk* “what can you do now?”) then the Supreme Court rules 9-0 for Trump; they do not look kindly on anyone flipping them the bird.
We did the same....
Great scenario but highly unlikely to happen
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.