Posted on 11/18/2020 9:17:34 AM PST by truthkeeper
From where did your language at post #13 originate? One of the Plaintiff’s briefs?
Very helpful post at #15. Thank you so much for replying.
Mostly*** its all inside baseball. It boils down to:
1. Rudy getting added to the team, no problem.
2. the Democrats doing all they can to obstruct.
3. the judge telling the AP they can’t intervene or otherwise get into the courtroom.
4. the judge ignoring natters and refusing to drop the case.
5. the good guys asking for three things:
a. a bit more time (one day) to meet filing deadlines in order to compensate for the obstruction of the other team.
b. an ability to add NEW INFORMATION to original complaints.
c. expedited discovery.
For the most part, that’s all just routine legal maneuvering and boring legal process.
It won’t become overly interesting until we see what NEW INFORMATION the Trump team intends to add to the complaint, and what they’re able to find when granted expedited discovery to backstop the new information.
A growing risk for the bad guys... as it seems they’re trying to actively obstruct access to information Trumps team has a right to get from them. Could see the Judge hold them in contempt if that trend is sustained... but expect they’ll try to keep it to resistance vs flagrant obstruction of the Judge’s orders... all of that still pretty routine.
***
I’m not a lawyer... but speak the language a little.
Maybe might expect that some of what gets included is this:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3907276/posts
While SCOTUS could rule that the PA Supreme Court wrongfully interpreted PA statutory law, but it would be extremely rare, (almost impossible normally). Usually the court defers to state supreme courts and their interpretations of state law, and would be unlikely to grant certiorari to review such a determination. The district court judge will undoubtedly defer to that as well. However, Article II, sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to determine the selection of presidential electors exclusively to the state legislatures. So, SCOTUS can rule that the PA Supreme Court exceeded its authority in a presidential election. (I doubt a lower federal court would do this.) In this case, PA elects its judges, including the Supreme Court, and it would be possible to find that they are acting as partisans, not neutral and detached judges, especially when the court divides along party lines as it did here. (A determination like that from SCOTUS would be unlikely as it would undermine confidence in state courts.)
What the PA Democrat machine is doing is the kind of âÂÂcutesyâ thing that courts usually reject. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause is relevant as different counties allowed different levels of review for the mail in ballots. So, PA has 67 counties. If in 65 counties polling observers were able to inspect and challenge the signatures of mail in ballots, but in two, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, they could not, then the equal protection clause was violated. Then the only issue is the proper remedy, i.e., invalidating ballots not permitted to have been viewed by poll watchers.
(Note: I attempted to post this once, and it appears to have failed. This is a repost with some editing.)
With the revelations coming from the various battleground states, I am convinced now more than ever that the Trump strategy is to overwhelm SCOTUS with evidence of corruption from all quarters. Manufacturing votes was geographically specific and devastating in is effect. Secretaries of State overstepped their authorities by extending the counting or otherwise modifying the instructions of the various legislatures. Poll watchers were excluded and/or intimidated. The list goes on. But the remedy for the corruption is not in the states, much as I would like the results to be overturned and the blue states turned back to their proper red.
I think that the Supreme Court will look at the data and conclude that election fraud did occur. Rather than selecting the President by excluding ballots, I think that SCOTUS will hold up the Constitution and state that the election was so corrupted that no conclusion can be drawn and toss this hot mess into the House for resolution. Each state delegation gets one vote.
Trump wins.
I don’t think it will be reasonably disputed that the equal protection clause was violated by having different “rules” in different counties in PA, MI, WI, and GA. The issue is what is the proper remedy for that?
Remember that in 2000, SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that the equal protection clause had been violated. People forget that. What was contentious, was the decision to stop the recount. That vote was 5-4. The issue again will likely be about a drastic remedy of voiding tens if not hundreds of thousands of ballots. The final point about Bush v. Gore that people forget is that Florida’s legislature was getting ready to vote for the presidential electors themselves. By shutting down the recount, SCOTUS stopped that embarrassment from happening. Twenty years later, and here we go again.
The election only gets decided by the U.S. House of Representatives if some state legislature doesn’t act if needed and the electors can’t vote. Even more interesting would be if competing slates of presidential electors submit votes from one or more states, and V.P. Pence, as President of the Senate selects one, but Dems don’t have the votes in the Senate to reverse the ruling of the chair.
Later
So Boockvar has now filed a response to the restored complaint alleging a deprivation of the equal protection of the law:
“The assertion of a constitutional Equal Protection violation is doomed to fail, she alleged, because the campaign doesnâÂÂt claim that state election officials engaged in discrimination when they allegedly failed to enforce state voting laws uniformly in every county.”
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/gov-law-northam-pol/2020/11/20/id/998103/?oRef=mixi
In short, geographical discrimination is O.K., and it was proper to have different rules in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, because thier was no discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or other group based methodology.
I am quite confident that Judge Brann will view the evidence submitted and conclude that PA election violated the equal protection clause of the the Fourtheenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by having different rules in different places and for different classes of voters. The big issues are enjoining the certification of PA’s election and the drastic remedy of voiding hundreds of thousands of votes, including those cast lawfully that are mixed in with the illegal or fraudulent ballots. Ultimately, that point will go up to SCOTUS. Get some popcorn and enjoy the show this weekend!
Thank you for this information.
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.