Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
bookmark
WOO-HOO! GO Sydney!
Ummmm... NO... the judge cannot give the legislature a power they already had!
I’m sure the article’s author just didn’t understand what the judge was saying.
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Ping
If a case has no chance whatsoever to succeed, it is generally considered frivolous and is dismissed at the git-go. "Likelihood to succeed" only indicates a non-zero chance of succeeding, i.e that it is not entirely frivolous.
From reading the ruling, it’s clear that the judge is very well aware that the Dems tried to pull a fast one with trying to certify only President and Vice President before she could rule. I don’t think she’ll let them get away with it.
Why doesn’t any of these sensational stories from GP ever come to fruition. If GP was even close to being true, Trump would have received 100 million votes, 40 states and this election would have already been settled. Does anywhen believe GP or am I just missing out on the joke?
We need some more cowbell here.
I just read the opinion.
I did not see anywhere in there where the judge “gave power” to the legislature directly or implicitly.
If anything, it looks to me like the judge was saying that the legislature could NOT act until after Dec 8.
However, I would disagree with that.
The legislature can take that power back at any time.
Whether or not it would be a good political move or not would remain to be seen.
I needed this.’
I just got through reading the 3rd circuit ruling against the Trump. It was brutal. I don’t know why the Trump campaign didn’t allege fraud in that case.
But this is good news. And it sounds like the legislature will act in PA.
If PA acts, then other states may well follow.
?????
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.”
“
3requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of themembers of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in twoconsecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be publishedfor three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in eachcounty, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot questionin the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on theamendment. “
...
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provisionis at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.
We’ll need another state besides Pennsylvania.
Awesome.
This the way we have to fight.
signing Act 77 of October 31, 2019, The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election.
Just in time for COVID-1984? Coincidence?
I guess this got a little less BREAKING HUGE with news out today.