Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Posted on 10/28/2020 3:00:54 PM PDT by Enlightened1
Um, I’m sorry, I didn’t make it plain: What does the State Constitution of Pennsylvania dictate regarding ballot counting/votes cast?
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Your answer to me is somewhat silly. Never been in a position of decision making? Oh wait, I have and you assumed facts not in evidence. Strawman much?
I can tell you have never served on a judiciary panel or participated as an arbitrator.
She wasn’t asked to render a final judgement but to grant emergency relief. Such relief by its very nature is always brought before the judge in a hurried manner requiring the judge to make a quick, but preliminary decision
that preserves the status quo until a full adjudication can be had.
In this instance the Constitution is clear and the irreparable harm from not granting temporary relief equally as clear. This doesn’t require the reading of a gazillion briefs. It requires one to be familiar with the allegations and harm alleged.
I cannot believe that you are seriously arguing that the Senate GOP fought so hard to seat this Justice just to have her sit it out for some rule or law that you have yet to identify, and cannot.
Instead you rely on some nebulous norms or rules. Hence why I refer to that as the Marques of Queensbury approach.
I do agree with you in this, however, the ship had likely sailed on emergency relief when the Court refused it in the first instance. Classic Roberts kicking the can in an act of cowardice. As if adjudicating this later, if Biden wins, is going to be any easier. The pressure in the Court will, I fear, result in a decision not borne out by the law but by intimidation. Then again, Roberts likely fully understood that.
Thank you.
Ft Marcy Park is closer.
Judciary panel? No. Artitrator? No. You, too, are assuming facts not n evidence.
But I have been is an approval/disapproval capacity since 2006, and have been recognized as an authority for expertise for several years during that time. One day, missing the relevant arguments, is not enough to decide.
I disagree with the decision. But I recognize two things: (1) not having enough time to evaluate a situation means one doesn't have enough time to make a decision and (2) her voting in favor of blocking the extension would have made no difference.
I understand the nature of emergency rulings. But, even should she have voted the way you are asking, it would have not made a difference in the outcome. Preserving the rule of law - that is, the rule that judges contemplate both the law and the case presented - is more important than a symbolic vote that marks the newest Justice as a political hack.
As I have stated, I agree the ruling should have been different, but it is not, and Barrett's vote would not have changed it. This is not my hill to die on. You can make your own choice.
Yes reactionary......yes I was
I’ve been volunteering and emotionally invested for our beloved President
to win a 2nd term....
Not necessarily for me......but for the future of my grandchildren
When I heard the chic read this out on F&F she gave the impression that .....’it was all over for Republicans’.....and Amy was no help.
I panicked!
Then I prayed harder!
And LS and Darth Vader were very helpful!
Post 107 is for you.......THANKS!!!!M
Are you a lawyer?
Do you understand the hours of preparation, reading cases, that goes into such a decision?
NO sane justice would try to render a decision on a case with less than 24 hours of prep, especially before even getting situated in an office with clerks up and running.
Yes, I am a lawyer and a litigator. But don’t blame me, the devil made me do it.
I would have liked ACB to participate here to put her two cents in and let the PA Dems know exactly how this would go if it came back to the Court.
Even if it were to say, I think there is a problem here but it’s too late for emergency relief. That way, the PA Dems would get a clue of exactly how this would end. All their efforts would be for naught.
Demon rats ignore courts and just do their cheating. It is treasonous since it disenfranchises a sovereign’s vote when a false ballot is cast, but the ones doing the cheating don’t like America anyway so they just work to destroy it.
Please explain for all of us:
Why won’t the court take these cases in bulk and render a generic one-time ruling on whether late vote counting constitutes a violation of one man, one vote?
I think I because each case differs. In NC the complaint was with the actions of the election board. But one could argue that the board was created by the legislature to make these decisions. PA was a case of a Court, I connected to any legislative action or authorization changing the rules at the 11th hour.
Who knows how the Court thinks. Maybe they will take them all up if they find a unifying principle behind the cases. Personally, I would not want a stronger case like the PA one being watered down by a weaker case. It gives Roberts and (now sadly) Kavanaugh a change to weasel and close over facts that would not support said glossing over.
Ah. I see your reasoning there.
There’s stuff behind closed doors that she didn’t participate in. They didn’t know when she was going to be confirmed. It was only a guess.
Because every state has its own rules.
“An extension of the timeline to count their ballots is wholly within the purview of every state.”
There is a distinction between counting after the day and voting after the day. The Constitution says Tuesday.
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.