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.
There are no Federal constitutional issues here.
The US Supreme Court will never hear this case.
From what I've read on the web, it seems the shneaky Democrats in that state came up with a brilliant strategy to get total control of their state Supreme Court: Hold elections for state SC justices in non-Presidential election years, so Republican voters won't pay as much attention (and may not even be bothered to vote). Looks like it worked: 5 Democrats, only 2 Republicans on that state's Supreme Court. LOL. What a joke. And the county map in Pennsylvania is very heavily skewed Republican. That state also has a Republican legislature. Yet Dems dominate that Supreme Court, 5 to 2. Wake up, Republicans! Wake up!
This case was decided in equity based in the principle of laches - something first year law students learn. Despite the law, you sat on the problem too long, only raising it when it you did not like the result. You should have raised it when the Legislature passed that law allowing mail-in ballots if you really thought it was a problem.
on what basis can they get it to SCOTUS?
************
The Court could review the matter of disparate treatment that has the effect of canceling or diluting the votes of some voters, or allowing privileges that some voters have but others don’t. Basically an equal protection issue.
In reading the PA Supreme Court opinions, it seems to me that laws in states have been ruled unconstitutional long after the fact. If so, then this seems to be a US Supreme Court issue.
Just because the Act 77 law stated that a party only had 180 days to object does not seem to me binding.
I would believe there are legal scholars who can bring up cases where laws were declared unconstitutional long after the fact.
The PA Supreme Court is solely relying upon the 180 day provision in Act 77 for their ruling.
LOL
That’s the rub, isn’t it?
By PA’s Constitution it WASN’T passed legally.
PA SC judges get elected to 10 year terms. We are stuck with them for at least 4 more years.
************
If the crooked voting systems do not change you may be stuck with judges like that for eternity.
“based on not filing on a timely manner. “
_____________________________________
Based on that asinine ruling several momentous rulings by the US Supreme Court ought not to have been done because they took action DECADES after the (soon to be delcared) unconstitutional laws were passed.
Anything to purchase time.
Glad you know their minds. Many thought they would never touch Bush v Gore either.
I resorted to copying and pasting each page to a word document to be able to read it. But I do not know how to post the word document to FR.
It wasn’t. They can’t. It requires a constitutional amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania to change voting rules for federal elections.
It requires various steps including being approved (by voting) by the VOTERS!
This WILL BE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL!
Pennsylvania Supreme Court ... read... Florida Supreme Court (2000)
State Constitutions can neither usurp nor contravene the US Constitution.
And the US Constitution says it is the state legislatures which determine the means of assigning electors.
That is, NOT State Supreme Courts.
ROFL!
My god you’re stupid and dishonest.
No Federal Law can get in the way of the Constitutional Statement that the state legislatures determine the selection of electors.
And a State Judge has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to pronounce on Federal Law.
“The PA Supreme Court is solely relying upon the 180 day provision in Act 77 for their ruling.”
Good luck with THAT!
Instead of following the procedure spelled out in the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will just pass a regular “law” and put a time limit on objecting to it.
That’s almost the same thing as the procedures for a constitutional amendment isn’t it? /s
The Constitution says that the state legislatures determine the selection of electors. Any State Constitution attempting to intimate otherwise is null and void on that point from the word go: because no legal doctrine in the US or any state can abrogate the US Constitution.
The supreme court rulings before the election were based upon that states constitution. If the constitution of pennsylvania says one thing, the state supreme court cannot do another. If it goes to the supreme court, they will back the state constitution
Links to the orders have been posted-—
These are now posted (PDFs):
Per curiam order: http://pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10781.pdf?cb=1f7217
Saylor concurring and dissenting statement: http://pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10783.pdf?cb=885cb7
Wecht concurring statement: http://pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10782.pdf?cb=067b04
Remember that before the election the PA SC took it upon themselves to over write the will of the legislature. The PA SC is made up of a bunch of corrupt political hacks and every judge on that court should be disbarred.
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.