Our Supreme Court Goes Full Nicaragua in PA Election Case

American Thinker ^ | 23 Feb, 2021 | C. Edmund Wright

[PIF]

That question has national importance, and there is a strong liklihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

The Supreme Court, a political body, has a long history of bad decisions that have actually cost people their lives and freedoms. Add this one to the list.

—

Tel me about it - see: WASHINGTON v. FISHING VESSEL ASSN., 443 U.S. 658 (1979)

SCOTUS affirmed the votes of the 30-35 million Biden voters by disenfranchising the votes of 46 million DJT voters.

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. Constitution clearly says that state legislatures have the authority to determine the method for appointing presidential electors. Why would the Supreme Court take this case at all instead of leaving the blame for the 2020 election fiasco right where it belongs — with the state legislatures?

[Stravinsky]

The Federalist Society gets too much hate, IMO, but the problem is that the ones most recommended by that group are all very similar - highly qualified and conservative on paper, but also heavily influenced by swamp-related factors such as having all attended the same few elite law schools, being a part of the same cocktail circles as the left, etc. Most of their lower court judges will turn out to be relatively solid because those judges don’t get much attention, but when it comes to the pressure of the Supreme Court, it’s a whole different ballgame. It takes thick skin not to go wobbly when the Left, the MSM, your old college friends, etc. are attacking you. And both you AND your spouse better be prepared to be ostracized from your social circles should you stick to doing what you know is right.

So, all that makes people question sticking just to Fed Soc types and wonder whether it might be better just to pick hardcore conservative ideologues that come from different legal backgrounds.

[PGR88]

just to pick hardcore conservative ideologues that come from different legal backgrounds.

Supreme Court Justices don’t even need to be lawyers -do they?

[Stravinsky]

No, they don’t, but realistically it would be difficult for one to handle all the different types of cases that come to the Court without some legal background. And I’d be a bit concerned about such a justice being able to recognize when his law clerks were trying to twist the law to support the conclusion they wanted.

[Fresh Wind]

There’s no need to pack the court. It’s already packed.

[jdsteel]

“Why would the Supreme Court take this case at all instead of leaving the blame for the 2020 election fiasco right where it belongs — with the state legislatures?”

Because the Supreme Court is there for suits that rise above the level of the State Supreme Courts.

In PA the election laws are written into the Constitution. Election laws were modified as a result of a lawsuit (NOT the State Legislature) and the PA SC ruled to move ahead with those changes. That is blatantly unconstitutional from what is written in the PA Constitution. The SCOTUS is the place to take that suit next according to the US Constitution.

They punted....unconstitutionally so.

[Alberta's Child]

Right there in your post you inadvertently explain why the U.S. Supreme Court had every reason NOT to take the case.

If the matter relates to the Pennsylvania Constitution, then there is no reason for a Federal court to be involved.

The PA legislature didn't even take any steps to stop that fiasco from unfolding.

[jdsteel]

Nope, you have it backwards.

The SCOTUS is there SPECIFICALLY for cases regarding matters of State Constitutionality once the State SC has their say.

Especially when relating to national elections.

Read Justice Thomases dissent.

[Alberta's Child]

I think you are flat-out wrong about that. From Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

So the Federal court system is designed to have jurisdiction over cases involving:

1. Constitutional matters (not applicable in the PA case)
2. Federal laws (not applicable in the PA case)
3. Treaties (not applicable)
4. Ambassadors and diplomats (not applicable)
5. Admiralty and maritime law (not applicable)
6. Controversies between states (not applicable)
7. Controversies between a state and the citizens of another state (not applicable)
8. Controversies between citizens of different states (not applicable)
9. Controversies between a state or its citizens and a foreign nation (not applicable)

[Ann Archy]

She or anyone else that are AFRAID for their littlw children should NEVER TAKE THOSE JOBS!

[jdsteel]

I will simply refer you to Constitutional expert, Mark Levin, who has spoke and written about this matter extensively. Notice he references Article II, section 1 clause 2.

Here is a short excerpt:

“The United States Supreme Court had an opportunity before the election, and in this general election cycle, to make clear to the states that they must comply with the plain language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Indeed, when a federal district judge in Michigan altered that state’s election laws, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned his order. Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the state legislature writes election laws. However, when a case was brought to the Court involving the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interference in state election laws, the U.S. Supreme Court was paralyzed. Chief Justice Roberts attempted to distinguish between federal and state courts, which is irrelevant; in another instance, Justice Alito ordered the Pennsylvania secretary of state, not once but twice, to segregate certain mail-in ballots, but nothing came of it. A court divided against itself cannot stand, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln. Its failure to enforce the Constitution (and by that I don’t mean make law or intervene in legitimate state election decisions) has contributed mightily to our current plight.”