Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Posted on 09/20/2020 2:51:16 PM PDT by karpov
Three days late, and no postmark needed: That’s the ruling on mail votes from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. State law clearly says absentee ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. But on Thursday the court controlled by Democrats, in a case filed by Democrats, rewrote the law in a 4-3 vote, with four Democrats in the majority, 47 days before Nov. 3.
“There is no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly,” the court’s majority admits. To overturn it, they cite a line in Pennsylvania’s constitution: “Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” How does that language empower judges to ignore the ballot deadline? We’ll wait while readers search for emanations and penumbras.
Pennsylvania’s election laws are flawed. Voters can request an absentee ballot as late as 5 p.m. on Oct. 27, seven days before the votes are due. The majority opinion calls this “an extremely condensed timeline” that “will unquestionably fail under the strain of COVID-19 and the 2020 Presidential Election, resulting in the disenfranchisement of voters.”
Before the state’s June 2 primary, a crush of applications meant that many ballots went out late. “An elector cannot exercise the franchise,” the majority says, “while her ballot application is awaiting processing in a county election board nor when her ballot is sitting in a USPS facility.” Thus the court orders that ballots be counted if they arrive by Nov. 6. If their postmarks are missing or illegible, they will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day” unless evidence shows otherwise.
The court’s feigned modesty elsewhere in the ruling is hilarious by comparison.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
‘Fill the seat’: Will Chamberlain notes that Amy Coney Barrett has already gone through Senate confirmation hearings
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/19/fill-the-seat-will-chamberlain-notes-that-amy-coney-barrett-has-already-gone-through-senate-confirmation-hearings/
why we need a full SCOTUS court now!
Take it to SCOTUS. Then get our lace hankies out and prepare to shed tears over “what RBG would have wanted, had she been here today.”
Dem motto “How long until vote counting is over? The day Biden is certified as the winner. As long as it takes.....”
Appeal with TRO on Monday please, GOP!
If I were Trump, I would fight fire with fire and have all his supporters do exactly what he told his people in North Carolina. Vote by mail and go to the polls to verify they got the vote!
Does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to pay attention to the US Constitution?
What happened to Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution?
“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
It says “Day” not three days, not two weeks.
Are these lawyers in black robes aware that anything other than Election Day compromises the integrity of the vote, delays the tabulation, and opens the window for large scale voter fraud?
Ping.
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
No postmark, no chain of custody, and ballots will count three days after the initial tally so that the number of votes needed to tip the election is known. What could go wrong?
The republican controlled PA legislature needs to get off their thumb and slap this hacktivist judge down for legislating from the bench. Tomorrow. And impeach and remove the ‘judge’ from the bench! Send a message to the hactivist judges.
There are 100’s of ways for the federal government to force states to do what they want. Not the least of which is to threaten to withhold federal funds if they do not obey. Plus a civil rights case could be made against this awful patchwork system.
Which is why Trump’s appointee to the SC needs to be confirmed ASAFP.
Is that in the Constitution? No, it is not. I take it that you don't believe in the Constitution. Those folks meet over at BidenforPresident.com.
Aware of it? I’m pretty sure that was the motivation.
“I was responding to a comment on another thread, and was reading up on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000. The Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, claiming that the Florida Court had created new election law, which is a right reserved for the state legislature. So wouldn’t these court-granted extensions, and ordering that late ballots, and ballots without postmarks must be counted...isn’t that just another example of the Court “creating new election law,” which is actually the job of the State Legislature?”
********************************************************************
ABSO-FRIGGIN’-LUTELY! The DemocRAT judges are going all lawless on this. This needs to be appealed IMMEDIATELY and, at the least, the appeals court should order all “EXCESS” votes that come in under this Pennsylvania Supreme Court “new law” should be set aside and not mingled with other votes until final resolution of the appeal.
Yes.
Why we need to fill the open Ginsburg seat before November 3. Plus the Dems see all the Trump rallies, caravans etc and they know with a boring demented weak candidate that cannot win without some rule changes
I could be wrong, but I think it is a state issue, since each state makes it’s own voting process (although, if I remember correctly, there should be an issue of changing the law within the voting period).
not going to fight with my hands behind my back anymore while libs run over us.
I am 100% all for using any and all measures against them that they were planning on using against us.
Remember they got rid of the filibuster because they THOUGHT they could use it against us! We have destroyed them using that against them. We need to use everything they want against them including getting the court to make law from the bench destroying them.
Are those lawyers in black robes communists?
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.