Posted on 11/06/2020 5:08:54 PM PST by Enlightened1
BREAKING NEWS. Supreme Court says segregate all votes after 8 PM on Election Day in Pennsylvania. This race is not over. By along shot. #BOOM
https://twitter.com/RealWayneRoot/status/1324877471934607360
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Tiger Claws wrote:
“SCOTUS rule is that states must follow what the state legislatures have set out.
Not courts.
Not election officials.
All those illegal ballots are tossed. Trump wins PA.
GA we will get with military.
Closing on AZ.
MI and WI were stolen. So will see how that plays out.”
Caww wrote:
“Now you’re talking!......Pa. Sec. of State and Gov. stepped ‘way over’ that line ‘Constitutionally’....and in writing.....this is an absolute breach and Interference in a Presidential election that will stick.
There’s a re-count in Georgia already stated.
Az?”
PA stepped in it by ignoring the first order, and mixing the suspect/late/backdated ballots in with the good/on-time/properly-dated ballots.
IMHO, any other state in which ballots got mixed is fair game for a similar challenge.
Yeah. Who? Who is going to do that? Mitch McConnell and his famous band of enforcers? LOL!
We’re done folks. Politics don’t matter in the-nation-that-used-to-be-America anymore.
The entire establishment was aligned against Trump from day one. He rocked their boat. He wasn’t born in the hallowed halls of Washington DC. He scared them. Then he messed with China and pissed off shadow-powers bigger and richer than any government.
Practice your royal bow, people. When Queen Kamala prances past on her parade-trained black stallion, caparisoned in democrat blue, while you’re in the field hoeing the beans, you will bow and you will smile. The threadbare gray rags you’re wearing had better be clean, or somewhat clean, or the Queen may take offense. Then you will be gaoled and things will really start to suck.
Excellent analysis; article II section 1 !!!
Political Junkie Too wrote:
“Their enforcement ability depends on what argument is brought to them.
I’ve been saying that if the state legislature brings the argument that it is they who have the Constitutional authority to make election law, and not the elections officials, the governor, or the state courts, and that the election is so corrupted by their unconstitutional power grab as to be beyond trustworthy, then the only option for the court is to nullify the certification and let the legislature exercise its Article II Section 1 power to select the electors directly.
The way to do it is this:
Hold the recanvas and document the inconsistencies in the books.
Prove that it is systemic and not just a statistical anomaly. Name names of perpetrators and provide whistleblower testimony, if possible.
Argue in front of the Supreme Court that the Constitution provides for the remedy of the state legislature, acting as the representative of the people in a republic, to select the Electors in a failsafe situation, as long as the Court finds the management of the election to be so fraudulent and untrustworthy as to vote to decertify it.
Then have the GOP state legislatures meet to vote on the following:
Have their GOP legislature make a vote of no confidence in the outcome of the election, citing a) widespread non-compliance with the election laws as passed by the legislature, and b) numerous examples suspicious behavior in the counting of the votes.
Have a second vote to express the sentiment of the legislature that the people of their state intended to vote for President Trump.
Have a third vote to exercise their Article II Section 1 power to appoint the Trump slate of electors to the Electoral College.
Then let Biden take THAT to the Supreme Court.”
It’s gonna go another week min.
Cracks are forming, people are moving..watch and wait.
It’s my understanding from reading the text of the legislation for the updated mail-in voting procedures that the stipulations that must be followed are bundled so that if any single qualification is not met, then NO mail-in ballots would be accepted. One is that they must be received by no later than 8 pm on Election Day. When the PA Supreme Court ruled that that date could be extended it nullified the mail-in vote.
Not sure I got that exactly right so don’t quote me, but I remember reading it yesterday or maybe Wednesday and it piqued my interest because it was obvious that what the PA SC ruled was totally unconstitutional.
Maybe another legal eagle on FR has the correct info.
If you can’t extract, you must subtract!
Also remember ... PA we have 100,000 provisional ballots and most of those in Trump won areas.
The case didn’t apply to other states. The PA court overrided the legislature on the text of the law recently. I am pretty sure ballot deadlines were already written into the law in all these other states as they stand today and thus the courts never got involved elsewhere.
Ping to those interested in this topic.
Some provisional ballots could be Democrats trying to vote in person after they already voted by mail to get a double vote in. Some could be Republicans who ordered a mail-in ballot but didn’t use it and then showed up at the polls without it.
Or of course all the other normal reasons a provisional ballot might happen. It does stand to reason though the provisionals should skew more GOP than mail-ins do since they happened in person. But how many of them would be deemed legitimate when examined is unknown.
This is going to get interesting. Only thing they can do is go back and see when voting was done in the past-which day, which month, etc.
I know that the swearing in (inauguration) was done much later in the past than it is done now.
At the absolute most the election officials might have to reverse a few ballots sometimes. But as long as there is no criminal enforcement, there is no law and no legal system. They will ignore the Supreme Court.
I don’t think it matters that he’s calling for segregation and they didn’t do it; what matters is that PA BREACHED a previous ruling and this pins them down, allowing for all mail in ballots to be destroyed.
I saw someplace that they are still photographing the mail so as to be able to trace Anthrax and other bio-attacks. So they might be able trace some of these ballots independent of postmarks Might even be able to show they didn’t enter the system normally if some counted votes weren’t in the photo logs.
As I read it..Washingtons election was in Jan. BUT, back then, they voted for electors and the electors cast the vote in each state at the legislature.
So..I might be wrong but, if it comes to it, the SCOTUS could say, since we cant let each and every state re-do the election, then it becomes the responsibility of the legislature to cast the votes-ONE vote, for each state at the direction of each states legislatures. So count the republican majority of the states and we get the total of votes that should be cast for the candidates. Hint...the republicans hold the majority of the state legislatures.
Now..that is if it gets to that.
NEW ground..and in no way would I want to be in the SCOTUS shoes. This will result in mass civil unrest.
Would they actually rule that way? Or would they let it slide, for lack of better wording, “for the good of the country”.
If Pennsylvania comes down to the last state that would determine which candidate gets to 270 electoral votes, the PA legislature could deflect any accusations of partisanship by refusing to vote a slate of electors for EITHER major candidate. Instead, they could vote for the electors of the Libertarian Party candidate -- which would mean neither Biden nor Trump gets the necessary 270 EVs and the president is then elected through a special vote in the House of Representatives.
If you only count the total through Tuesday, there’s no need to make folks vote again.
We had one solo ‘electronic’ ballot machine, 6 paper ballot areas, given the choice if you preferred the electronic.
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.