Posted on 11/08/2020 4:56:15 AM PST by PJ-Comix
Figure of speech.
To give you an extreme example, suppose the PA secretary of state and affirmed by the state supreme court had allowed for precincts to block voting by all registered Republicans. The election is obviously in violation of election law but in spite of what the governor or his administration says or the election results, the state legislature would have the constitutional right to choose the slate of electors. That is more than obvious but just as obvious as the state legislature has the right to choose the elector if there is any violation of state election law especially something so big as allow the votes to be counted past the LEGAL deadline.
The question is NOT a matter of invalidating the PA results. The question is ruling on whether the state legislature has the right to choose a set of electors due to VIOLATION OF STATE ELECTION LAWS.
Everybody’s focused on Pennsylvania, but Trump can’t win without the electoral votes from North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, and those states haven’t been called...yet.
I believe the Pennsylvania Legislature voted one way, I think to not allow the vote counting extension, and the PA SC overruled them. But election laws are the purview of the LEGISLATURE not the PA Supreme Court.
Let me know what you think.
BTW, this isn’t just a matter of if several precincts in Philly violated state election law by refusing to allow poll watchers to be present during the counting. This is the YUUUUGE matter of the entire state of Pennsylvania acting VIOLATION of its own election laws by allowing the counting of mail ballots past the legal deadline. Oh, and other illegal procedures they allowed as well.
MI and WI are facing the same situation as PA but I am focusing here on the latter.
SC
Correct. And this isn’t a matter of technicalities or legal loopholes, this is a central legal issue. Are elections conducted in VIOLATION OF STATE LAW legal? If not, then the state legislature has the constitutional right to select the electors.
You are assuming the GOP legislature has a set of testicles.
Please read and share this link sent to me by a retired Marine officer.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-demand-verification-ballots-cast-2020-election
We the People Demand VERIFICATION of Ballots Cast in the 2020 Election
Created by D.F. on November 05, 2020
Remember that in order to request a decision from a court, you must have an actual case or controversy. Meaning someone has to have been damaged in some way from the conduct complained of. Otherwise the courts have no jurisdiction over the matter. Of course there is the possibility of seeking an advisory opinion, if allowed, but that is a matter of state laws and states differ on the allowability of that. The USSC is not allowed to issue advisory opinions. This is what they are talking about when they say a case is “not ripe.”
When the USSC saw the case in October, it was not ripe yet and the Court ordered the ballots be separated, which was the least onerous way to preserve a remedy in this dispute if in fact it is found that someone was actually damaged by the illegal standards later. This happened because the USSC could not hear or decide on the writ of cert about the illegal standards before he actual election as there had been no damage yet.
They did not formally accept the Writ of Cert nor did they deny the writ. The case is ripe now.
Which is why I have a THREAD with links to contact information on EVERY state legislator.
The answer would be yes, I would argue, because the US constitution places the responsibility for the manner of choosing electors in the state legislatures. The legislatures delegate that through state law to the voters, voting under the laws established by the state [and in accord with federal election law which I believe derives from the equal protection clause - all voters have to be treated equally].
If the law is not followed, then the legislature as the supervening authority has the right to choose the electors themselves.
The 4-4 “decision” was a decision NOT to decide— but was “laid aside”. In the dissenting group, it was Gorsuch that wrote the opinion and stated the original issue can and will be re-visited.
Don’t have the wording of that 4-4 refusal to hear the case— thereby sending it back to the illegal PA State Supreme Court actions (contrary to PA State Constitution— and thereby null and void, if they weren’t all set on illegal theft, and the survival of the dem machine). the wording is online.
The set aside/refusal was because there was not a full 9 seated SCOTUS. They will revisit it-— with the evidence. The PA Supreme Court is to be struck down because it flies exactly in the face of the Federal Constitution Article that gives the power of election laws/ rules solely to the State’s Legislatures (not the gov, not the PA Supreme Court, and certainly not the PA Sec. of State who is named).
FReepers on this thread. Justice Alito has this area of the country in his responsibility, and the power within the Court to give the Order he gave. The fact that they IGNORED the first order will NOT sit well with the full SCOTUS.
PA’s actions were, shall we say, Andrew Jacksonian in their foolishness (or some might say— “right, let him enforce the order- with what army. Answer the US Federal Govt. Unlike when Andy J caused Nullification).
If the state’s highest court ruled the practice legal than it was legal. SCOTUS’ responsibility is whether the action conflicts with the Constitution or federal law. It took no stance on that so the voting practices are in line with Pa state law since Pa Aupreme Court ruled they are. State legislature is by law omitted from the electoral process unless fuether evidence can change the Couet’s mind.
It was Alito who asked for the segregation of ballots but it was Roberts who granted the 3-day extension, I believe.
Alito wrote the USSC opinion denying expedited hearing because there was no actual threat of imminent damages at the time. At that time there was nothing but speculation about being damaged by the bad election standards. Alito actually agreed with the opinion of the majority of us here, and mentions it in his opinion. The issue is far from over, as long as the USSC grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
In any case, if the Writ is accepted, the USSC will not appoint or declare anyone as President. You’re silly if you think that, and make the rest of us freedom loving people look like fools. They will punt the ball to the legislative delegations of the states in question and order them to follow the constitutional process laid out.
Technically, the case may not fully ripen until the SOS certifies the results. In theory at least, Trump could still win PA, which would moot the case.
Shrinking the time to do anything about it might be a strategic play on the SOS’s part not just in PA but in the other close states, which is why we haven’t seen any official certifications yet.
So, let’s say it works out that way - the GOP Penn state legislature chooses a Trump set of electors instead of the illegally (illegal under state law) obtained Biden set of voters.
And SCOTUS goes along with the choice of the GOP set of electors.
Where will that leave the Electoral College Vote; with Biden not at 270 AND Trump not at 270? An impasse, to be settled by the House - where each state delegation gets one vote, and the GOP has more state delegations than the Dims?
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.