Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: little jeremiah
I posted on that about a month ago, some analysis of the original Alito order. I didn't bookmark it, alas! but ...

What do we have here? I *knew* there was a reason I had > 130 tabs open on my browser!

Why Trump Will Triumph in PA Litigation

532 posted on 12/04/2020 2:59:04 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change with out notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

> Why Trump Will Triumph in PA Litigation

Good stuff! TYFP.

-SB


538 posted on 12/04/2020 3:07:25 PM PST by Snowybear ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers

Seriously dude, 130 tabs open? MY old laptop will spontaneous combust if I did that.


554 posted on 12/04/2020 3:29:15 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers; All

INTERESTING LINK POSTED BY GREY WHISKERS—I have reposted the link, and various snips/excerpts —PA case:

Translated into common English: In Boockvar, the Republican Party sent a request to the US Supreme Court to review a lower court case, and then asked them to hurry up about it. The US Supreme Court declined the motion to expedite, e.g. it refused to hurry up. But - and this is very important - it did not deny the petition for the writ of certiorari.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t just say “Act 77 is unconstitutional.” It re-wrote Act 77 itself, by judicial fiat, creating new rules for time, place, and manner, of holding elections. In doing so, the State Supreme Court violated the US Federal Constitution.

And that’s the real case here. The US Supreme Court is going to rule that the State Supreme Court violated the US Constitution, the State Supreme Court’s ruling is going to be overturned, and the votes that arrived after 8 PM on election day will be discarded. On that basis, Trump will win Pennsylvania.

https://macris.substack.com/p/why-trump-will-triumph-in-pa-litigation


569 posted on 12/04/2020 3:42:44 PM PST by greeneyes ( Moderation In Pursuit of Justice is NO Virtue--LET FREEDOM RING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson