Posted on 11/28/2020 3:23:58 PM PST by Alter Kaker
The PA Supreme Court dismisses the case brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly that sought to overturn last year’s law creating no-excuse mail voting and to throw out those mail ballots cast in this election.
This is the case the Commonwealth Court had earlier blocked certification in.
Watch as 20K PA votes for Trump disappear in real time on
@CNN
... 1,690K to 1,670K. Explanations?
https://twitter.com/DrSamGirgis/status/1332420490879709184
Absolutely not the case.
This suit involved Act 77 which was passed last year by the Republican majority PA House and Senate.
All the governor did was sign it.
I think that's right. There isn't really a federal controversy here.
ok
on what basis can they get it to SCOTUS?
Expect no justice for Republicans from courts that change the law as they go to favor Democrats, courts that have never applied original intent.
Didn’t this same issue come up before the election.
Court is indicating that they waited too long to file..but seems like they tried to do something about it before the election
I told you the PA Supreme Court is a left wing joke.. just like FL Supreme Court in 2000
You will never get remedy in the PA court system on these things.
Only in federal court can you.
Interesting. As the case was clear that it had merit. Partisan courts are a threat to our republic and to the state legislature. The PA constitution is quite clear on when absentee ballots are permitted. It is also clear on how to change that. The order in question did not meet those standards at all.
Interestingly, at least one of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices (Justice Wecht) argues in a concurring opinion that it would be illegal under federal law for the PA legislature to challenge the election and pick electors at this point, although strictly speaking that question was not before the Court in this case - but it does seem like a shot across the bow.
How many people here were rooting for her position and at the same time saying the PA legislature should ignore the state constitution and just choose their own slate of electors?
The President of the U.S. was on the ballot. It’s a federal controversy.
The Federal Constitution clearly says that State Legislatures are souly responsible for election laws . Those laws were altered by entities other than the Legislatures. Altered, we now know , to make it easier to steal elections.
I think the only basis For the SCOTUS to review the case might be that the law was used in a Federal election.
This case? Probably not much of one. Maybe another case. But this is a question of state law and it seems unlikely the Supremes would touch a question of state law. There's no federal question here.
They didn’t disappear, they were given to Biden. He went from 1252 to 1272. Clearly a vote switch happened right before our eyes.
Lots of states allow absentee ballots. No federal law restricts absentee ballots. If any law restricts them, it's the PA State Constitution which is why the PA Supreme Court, not a federal court, calls the shots here. PA, not the feds, decides what PA law says.
Absentee ballots aren’t the issue. Unrestricted mail-in ballots in a federal election certainly are.
The Constitution gives the states the right to choose their electors any way they like.
This is squarely a state law issue.
Good question, but I’m reasonably sure that those posters weren’t attempting to articulate a nuanced theory of the law.
Those are the same thing. The Republican Pennsylvania legislature passed a law expanding mail-in voting. This lawsuit challenged that law under the PA State Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, no federal law prevents them from doing this - and nobody has argued otherwise. If you know of a federal law at issue here, this might be a good time to let folks know!
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.