Posted on 11/28/2020 5:36:22 AM PST by USA Conservative
A Pennsylvania appeals court judge ordered state officials on Wednesday to halt any further steps toward certifying election results, a day after Gov. Tom Wolf said he had certified Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
Wolf’s administration quickly asked the state Supreme Court to block the ruling from taking effect, saying there was no “conceivable justification” for it.
“Since the birth of our nation nearly 250 years ago, no court has ever issued an order purporting to interfere with a state’s ascertainment of its presidential electors – until today,” the administration said in its motion.
Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, a Republican, had issued the order and set a hearing for Friday. It wasn’t immediately clear if she intended to hold up the certification of state and local contests on the ballot or interrupt the scheduled Dec. 14 meeting of the state’s 20 electors.
She came back with more good news or Trump’s legal team as late in the night, Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that PA preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld and that gives state legislators power to choose electors. She issued a HUGELY favorable opinion
Of Note: – Commonwealth barred from taking ANY further steps to certify results – Issues raised found to be of “statewide and National concern” -“likelihood to succeed on the merits”
“Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed.”
so: “..the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing From the memorandum:
“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.”
The petitioners in the case are Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, Michael Kincaid, and Wanda Logan.
Legal Insurrection – A Pennsylvania state court judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight.
The case has been somewhat under the radar because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.
The issue, in this case, is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.
The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending further hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be relevant to the appeal:
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 provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were more steps to be taken [emphasis added].
Judge McCullough concluded: This is not a final ruling on the merits. It’s meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.
Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don’t see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together. Here is a copy of Friday night’s ruling.
A link if you wish to download the memorandum:
Memorandum-Opinion-Filed
People shared their opinion online:
In any case, if any of you wonder what is memorandum opinion here’s your explanation:
Under United States legal practice, a memorandum opinion is usually unpublished and cannot be cited as precedent. It is formally defined as: “[a] unanimous appellate opinion that succinctly states the decision of the court; an opinion that briefly reports the court’s conclusion, usu. without elaboration because the decision follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law.”
Generally, memorandum opinions follow ordinary rules, including the application of precedent and the rule of stare decisis.
Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough:
I believe the US Constitution specifies that the state legislature shall set the method and means of choosing the electors, quite independent of what any judge may decree.
The language is clear as day and the law was broken period...there is no legal reasoning for mail-in ballots....which the press purposely tried to equate absentee ballots with “mail-in voting” which was illegal
the press is the enemy and the majority of the pop does know the diff
BOOM!
Can they make it where wolf cant get involved. If we keep it away from the bad peeps..
This is the case I hang my hat on. Con law argument.
Pennsylvania state and local election officials, if not state legislators or the governor, need to be brought to account in trials for the travesty of holding an unconstitutional, fraudulent election.
Upon conviction the punishment will need to be extremely severe as a warning to others.
Tangential, but relevant: In the absence of a rational argument or of being able to wish the law away, the past 4 years has seen the left increasingly use, to the point where it's now a common part of their rhetoric and even argument structure, that 'violation of norms' (often 'violation of democratic norms) as they usually phrase it, is the equivalent of 'wrong' or 'illegal.'
There are many weaselly language tricks they have introduced into the common lexicon and debate. One of the most common, and they used it with Trump all the time is 'but, but, but, this is unprecedented, it goes against hundreds of years of tradition, it shatters norms, is not in line with our democracy.'
It should be included in the common logical fallacies along with straw men, red herrings, begging the question. It's like appealing to authority ... but ... appealing to the past. That something may or may not have taken place in the past is no logical argument that it's wrong, irrational, or illegal.
Ultimately, it's just a non-sequitur. You don't refute it since it actually claims nothing of logical value, even if technically true. There is nothing to resist, so all you can say, which overwhelms it, is 'so what?'
I think I’m with you.
This one is actually straight forward and easier to grasp.
Bttt
Wasn’t this stay lifted?
Kabuki theater.
The PA Supreme Court is the Court that changed the rules. They will simply overturn this.
PA was heading for trouble a long time ago,
The Supreme Court has seized control over the state and governs it. From redistricting to election law, the PA legislature has been rendered irrelevant. Wolf can’t get what he wants there so he does it himself and gets the Court to rubber stamp it or do it for him.
It is high time for the legislature to seize its power back by impeaching the State Supreme Court.
The New York Times In Harsh Rebuke, Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Election Challenge in Pennsylvania Alan Feuer 11 hrs ago
In a blistering decision, a Philadelphia appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump campaign could not stop — or attempt to reverse — the certification of the voting results in Pennsylvania, reprimanding the president’s team by noting that “calling an election unfair does not make it so.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-harsh-rebuke-appeals-court-rejects-trump-s-election-challenge-in-pennsylvania/ar-BB1bqJ6t?ocid=msedgntp
They will. And Roberts helped them.
But now it is a little different ball game with the court swing.
This will have to go up the chain. Expect reversals
But it’s a start
Let’s hope the other state elections that are being contested will follow suit.
Team Trump plans to appeal that to the SOCTUS.
The state legislature always has the power. We don’t need a judge to give it to them. But the judges ruling is nice political cover.
It would seem to this layman that The US Constitution (ART VI: Clause 2) overrides any PA law that might deny the legislature the right to submit its Electoral vote slate to Congress. The Supreme court might then be brought in to adjudicate between it and and a governor's "certified" ballot. I don't see why this would not apply to MI and WI, as well.
Thanks. Hard to keep up with the lying media!
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.