Did Justice Alito set a ‘Safe Harbor’ trap by setting Pennsylvania response deadline a day AFTER?

NOQ Report ^ | December 4, 2020 | JD Rucker

[kellymcneill]

Mainstream media and social media legal “scholars” have been celebrating a decision by Justice Samuel Alito. After accepting U.S. Congressman Mike Kelly’s petition challenging the results of the presidential election, Justice Alito set a deadline of December 9th for the state to respond. It’s a conspicuous date since the so-called “Safe Harbor” date for picking electors is December 8th.

This has been interpreted by nearly everyone as an indication the Supreme Court does not want to get involved with the election shenanigans, and that very well may be the case. But in this particularly scenario, it would behoove a reluctant Supreme Court to act quickly and decisively if they do not want to get involved because this petition has many challenges. It’s likely to be thrown out, as lower courts have, because the decisions in question have been in place for months but Pennsylvania Republicans did not act until after President Trump appeared to lose. This calls into question their motivation and resolve; a quick dismissal by the Supreme Court would play towards their perceived stance of not wanting to get involved.

By slow-playing this petition, it’s very possible Justice Alito is giving Republicans an open door to contest not only the election results but the electors as well. Below is the provision for “Safe Harbor” in which I highlighted two relevant pieces of information.

[lepton]

The Electoral College vote is the 14th this year. The Safe Harbor date is the seventh date before that, or the 8th.

The ‘Safe Harbor’ refers to a law under which Congress agreed to recognize the electors votes as long as the state had resolved the appointment of those electors under laws which existed prior to the election (by 90? days).

[lepton]

5 of the 6 have already transmitted their slate of electors to the national archives. You can see them here.

---

That link doesn’t appear to say all of that. What are you trying to say it shows?

[SisterK]

The GOP needs to be destroyed for this and that is exactly what should be the focus for the next four years.

they get away with this blatant fraud,
I highly doubt we will be a country in four years

[SisterK]

perhaps also that the act of certification itself was a knowing fraud, and a continuation of a pattern of fraud

Yes! Evidence was rolling in before the states were certified.

[SisterK]

I totally agree

[MayflowerMadam]

“I’ve read several articles where the absolute final day is the 14th.”

I may have heard incorrectly, but it seems that it’s even later than that. In her instrucions to the legislators during hearings, I thought Jenna said they have the authority and power to make changes up to Inauguration Day. I may have interpreted it wrong.

[HotHunt]

Thanks.

[Ponyexpress9790]

Were I younger??? Patriots have no age, the spirit of Freedom and Liberty will give you the strength and courage of ten, my FRiend.

[Dr. Franklin]

can you properly address specific questions of venue, standing, harms done and laches, in proper context of the full range of Constitutional issues... from enabling unlawful elections... to coordination in a conspiracy to subvert the conduct of the elections... but also the Constitution ?

From what I have seen and read, many state and lower federal courts have been using cutesy arguments of laches, standing, mootness, lack of harm, etc., to avoid addressing the 500 lbs. gorilla in the room, the fraud and gross violations of the Equal Protection Clause in the elections.

Not knowing what provisions do exist in state law in the various contested states is an issue ? You can’t tell what that bit in 3USC5 means without knowing the state laws in each state. And, I don’t pretend to know those laws.

We don't know what the state laws are largely because the state courts have largely side-stepped addressing the fraud. See above.

That says nothing at all about what happens either if the state law remains silent on that means of resolution under 3USC5... or what happens if the state actions, rather than being positively assertive, are instead the opposite... a negation... and a deliberate withholding of any validation.

Plainly if there is no law to resolve problems selecting presidential electors, or if those problems dodn't get resolved for some reason, then the Safe Harbor provision doesn't apply. I don't think SCOTUS wants to resolve all issues from massive fraud in several states. By simply declaring that no Safe Harbor will apply to those states, they would kick the problem back to state courts, legislatures, and ultimately Congress to determine the final solution to the problem. Ultimately, the election of the president is a political issue.

[trebb]

“...but Pennsylvania Republicans did not act until after President Trump appeared to lose...”

Ummmm - they would have been told they have no standing if they moved earlier...

[Fury]

Activating the Insurrection Act and declaring a national emergency with Martial Law declared is the real way to combat this treason

One possible outcome of this is Articles of Impeachment drawn up, followed by Impeachment, followed by a trial and conviction. I'd be surprised if the majority of Republicans did not vote for Impeachment and Conviction.

[Fury]

I agree, martial law is necessary and there needs to be mass arrests of Democrats AND Republicans.

How do you do "mass" arrests?

What is considered to be an arrestable offense? Who makes that determination?What happens if protesters protest that Biden won or that the election was fair? Do they get arrested?

When do those arrested get to answer charges? Is habeas corpus suspended? Where? Nationwide? State? Local?

[Dr. Franklin]

Safe harbor is what ended Gore's recounts in Bush v. Gore.

In 2000 The Supreme Court said Gore could have his recount, but they needed to recount all the ballots in a similar method so they remanded back to the State Supreme Court for rules. But even though Gore still had cases and the recount was still technically permissible FL had transmitted their results to the archives and safe harbor kicked in.
Gore didn't so much as lose in court, he ran out of time.

I ketp looking at Bush v. Gore as precedent for what SCOTUS would do this time. If they let the Safe Harbor date pass, then this time will be different. That could be because the Rhenquist Court favored Bush, and the Roberts Court doesn't want to be seen as political, or it could be that with 20 years perspective the Court wants to find a way to kick this back to other political actors in the state legislatures and Congress. Declaring that no Safe Harbor will apply to this mess is one way of doing that.

[MHGinTN]

Of no effect once the state of emergency and Martial Law is declared. The President holds all the cards if he wants to play them. The Insurrection Act gives the President power over the legislature during the state of emergency.

I wonder, will we be getting an Oval Office presentation this weekend?

[Fury]

Of no effect once the state of emergency and Martial Law is declared. The President holds all the cards if he wants to play them. The Insurrection Act gives the President power over the legislature during the state of emergency.

The process of Impeachment / Trial is set forth in the US Constitution - the Insurrection Act certainly is not superior to the US Constitution.

Lincoln did not hold all the cards regarding the Federal Legislature when he declared martial law.

[Dr. Franklin]

If the courts won't help him and the state legislatures won't right this obvious injustice, he has no other choice but to take control and restore the outcome of the election to the rightful winner....himself.

My view is that if POTUS has the evidence that the election was tabulated abroad on foreign servers, and then manipulated by vote switching, then he has an obligation to do something. That fraud likely includes fixing House and Senate elections too. The latter might get resolved eventually, but the presidential election has a hard deadline when the electoral college meets on Dec. 14th. By invoking the Insurrection Act in certain states, POTUS denies those governors control of the state militia and National Guard units. That would permit peaceful protestors to shut down the electoral college from voting there on Dec. 14th, if the state legislatures don't use their powers in the Electors Clause. It would force the issue.

[MHGinTN]

Ah, so you are just peachy with the Treason electing harris. Got it.

[bert]

Hmmm... Well reasoned post

The question that rose in my mind is......... what contact is there between conservative justices and the Presidential effort?

Must there be separation f powers when the Republic is at stake?

[Fury]

Ah, so you are just peachy with the Treason electing harris. Got it.

I am not "peachy" with Harris.

I am concerned that you believe that martial law, Insurrection Act, etc somehow negates action that the Federal Legislature (or Judiciary?) may take per the U.S> Constitution.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that President Trump invoking martial law will unify both federally elected Democrats and Republicans to move to impeach and then convict.

[MHGinTN]

Then go sit in the corner and suck on your binky. What is racing toward this nation is demise if this treason is not dealt with harshly right now. Concern trolls are nothing but in the way.