BREAKING HUGE: Pennsylvania Judge Rules 2020 PA Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed” – Gives State Legislators Power to Choose Electors!

GATEWAY PUNDIT ^ | 11/17/2020 | Jim Hoft

[rainee]

Several people on Twitter are pointing out the footnotes in judge ruling being of high importance..
Specifically, Reynolds vs Sims case is referenced..one person, one vote
Maybe that’s how it gets to USSC?

[MHGinTN]

To take bacj they will need a veto proof vote to keep Wolf from cancelling the righteous effort. Demoin rats are soul dead servants of lies, so Wolfl is likely going to fight the ‘take back’ tooth and nail, to defend the sedition.

[bitt]

https://www.scribd.com/document/486132522/Memorandum-Opinion-Filed-in-Pennsylvania-by-Judge-McCullough-Election-Likely-Unconstitutional#from_embed

even though you hate GP, here’s the Judge’s ruling

[bitt]

See lawyer/election analyst/super-bettor Robert Barnes twitter:

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1332530731231236097

“Pennsylvania trial court rules the 2020 election was likely unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, and that gives state legislators power to choose electors.”

[conservative98]

HUGE decision issued by Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCulloughhttps://t.co/q0vDuNXGaa— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 28, 2020

[bitt]

PENNSYLVANIA: The injunction halting the certification stands. A PA judge finds that the PA constitution was likely violated in the expansion of mail-in balloting. Case likely to end up before SCOTUS.https://t.co/6bxBcVu0dq— Kevin McCullough (@KMCRadio) November 28, 2020

[MHGinTN]

BWahahahaha ... thanx, I needed that interjection of humor here!

[Safrguns]

>>> To take back they will need a veto proof vote to keep Wolf from cancelling the righteous effort.

No... Legislature has unilateral authority.

Governor cannot veto a joint resolution.

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

This is a resolution to take back their power the Gov. has NO VETO power with this resolution this is in the PA. constitution just for instances such as this where the governor seems to have taken power from the legislators this is a remedy for them to take back their power the governor can’t do a damn thing about it!!

[Safrguns]

>>> Good. Now if the state legislature will actually act to award electors to Trump. That is a big IF.

Looks like they already did.

They just havn’t put it on paper yet.

Mastriano was on Bannon’s this evening saying it will happen monday.

[lee martell]

Thanks for making that clear. My champagne remains corked.

[sit-rep]

just yesterday it was posted 3 judges shot down Trumps case and all the freepers were all giddy about it going to scotus and now this... what the hell is goin on??

[Safrguns]

Oh... and the other good news is that Trump’s team is VERY confident after talking to OTHER legislatures that most of them are simply waiting on ONE to do this so they can follow.

So when this DOES HAPPEN, the other GOP states will most likely follow.

I love Dominoes. (not the greasy pizza or the election hackers.... the game!)

[WildHighlander57]

Didn’t judge Alito weigh in on the “3 days after the election” counting of ballots, and say that they couldn’t do that?

And wouldn’t he say the same thing here, that the mail-ins violated the state law?

[eastexsteve]

Basically, what the judge did was stop any attempt to certify the votes until there was an evidentiary hearing.

[zaxtres]

Arizona is just beginning to get the picture.

[ETCM]

First, it’s GP AND Hoft, so obviously a sensationalist, clickbait headline...

So the lawsuit says the PA Legislature screwed up in drafting and passing the 2019 Act 77, which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions in the Pennsylvania Election Code, the vote by mail law. That failure to follow procedure renders ACT 77 unconstitutional, rendering those mail-in votes, and the election, void. That’s a hell of a “relief”, disenfranchising every voter in the state, legal or not. It does look like they have their stuff in one sock, so to say. But these folks are not saying there was fraud, just that the legislature screwed up back in 2019, thus the election must be declared invalid.

[TexasGurl24]

The six essential prerequisites that a moving party must demonstrate to obtain a preliminary injunction are as follows: (1) the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be compensated adequately by damages; (2) greater injury would result from refusing the injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, the issuance of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings; (3) the preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the party seeking injunctive relief has a clear right to relief and is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and, (6) the preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41, 46-47 (Pa. 2004)

[MHGinTN]

Thank you, I stand corrected! A resolution is out of the guvnuh's purview.

I'm getting too old for this stuff ... I recall hearing MAstriano say it was a resolution so it is out of the governor's reach to veto.

[Rockingham]

I disagree. A finding of likelihood of success on the merits for a preliminary injunction commonly shapes the case toward a settlement favoring the plaintiff or a decision for the plaintiff at the final hearing.