Posted on 11/28/2020 9:35:47 AM PST by God_Country_Trump_Guns
After issuing a temporary injunction against further certification of PA election results, the trial judge issued a memorandum of opinion, finding that PA's mail-in ballot law likely violate PA Constitution
What time was this order posted
The PA Supreme Court will shoot it down in 2 secs flat. They are partisan democrat put in place to ensure this very thing is allowed.
Illustrating graphically the rise of lawlessness.
The date stamp only indicates that it was filed yesterday. Some Fed Courts time-stamp electronic filings. But I guess this PA trial court does not.
This will likely be appealed to the PA Supreme Court. However, I think this line of argument is strong and has a good chance of success.
***********************
This have almost zero chance of success at the PA Supreme Court. They are nothing more than political hacks.
However, if it goes to the US Supreme Court, they will likely win.
Let’s hope the PA legislature corrects this as it should.
Other states will follow - Georgia in particular.
Let’s wait and see. If the PA Supreme Court overturns, they better lay out their rationale in a very well-reasoned opinion.
We should hope so..... the sooner they toss it the sooner it can go to SCOTUS. The WORST thing for us right now would be for any court to take their time and consider this.
Time is NOT our friend. The facts are on our side, but time is not.
Bump
The PA state legislators need to tell the PA Supreme court to take a hike, it’s their sole constitutional prerogative to run this election. Decertify and give the election to Trump based on the mail in fraud.
The State supreme court can then demand SCOTUS take it up if they don’t like it.
If the PA Supreme Court does nothing, then the injunction stands. If the PA Supreme Court lifts the injunction, then an appeal goes to SCOTUS.
Works for me.
But God is on our side.
We should hope so..... the sooner they toss it the sooner it can go to SCOTUS. The WORST thing for us right now would be for any court to take their time and consider this.
Time is NOT our friend. The facts are on our side, but time is not.
Curious...If SCOTUS takes the case(s), can’t they put an injunction or stay on the Electoral College in order to conduct a comprehensive review and issue an opinion? Is the 14th a Constitutionally driven drop dead date to award electors and end this madness?
I would think that SCOTUS would take their time and get this right, rather than just let the clock run out..and issue a half-assed opinion.
Nixon won 49 States in 1972, just saying. It may have to be a long fight.
At its core, this is purely a question of PA state law. It will take some very clever lawyering to make it a Federal question that can be reviewed by SCOTUS.
Watch. And Pray. Let’s see what happens.
The PA legislature ceases to exist on Monday. If between now and then they enact a law allowing them to seat the incoming members now instead of in January then it's all over as far as any PA legislative action goes.
That's not how it works. The GA Legislature has assumed proper control of the voting laws of the state, and their resolution addressed the lack of authority of the executive and judicial branches to make any changes (like extending mail-in deadline). They only answer to the US Constitution at this point.
Their choice is to select the electors themselves, or Trumps electors, or remain 'in dispute' at the Electoral College Dec. 14 and lose all their representation to select the President.
The point I am making is that a better basis for PA legislature to send in DJT electors is not fraud, but constitutionality of mail-in ballots.
Here’s why:
Fraud is a question of fact, and requires testimony under oath, authenticated documents, etc. And at the end of the day, we need to show enough fraudulent votes to tip the numbers.
Constitutionality, on the other hand, is a question of law. If a statute is unconstitutional, the legislature does not need to make a factual finding.
I am not sure what the legal remedy is and I have tried to figure it all out.
There is very clear case law on fraud. Mark Levin who is often more originalist than SCOTUS (but knows his stuff) lays out one avenue with state legislators playing a big role. However, it would require SCOTUS to stand up for what will be an unpopular decision in DC.
Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy think there is nothing they can do (they know their stuff also) because the only “remedy” is so drastic. In other words, they both agree (without explicitly saying so) with Levin, but they view the likely outcome outside the law and think SCOTUS will NOT overturn the election because it would be too drastic.
Ironic isn’t it that “doing the right thing” takes a backseat to politics for them. If you want to commit crime, make it the biggest crime imaginable and the courts will punt? Great system we have here isn’t it?
Roberts decision prior to the election will go down in history as one of the WORST decisions by SCOTUS. The law was clear, but it did not match his politics. That is my .02 - we should all be terrified that we have a Chief Justice who will suspend the constitution for a virus.
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.