Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Justice Alito set a ‘Safe Harbor’ trap by setting Pennsylvania response deadline a day AFTER?
NOQ Report ^ | December 4, 2020 | JD Rucker

Posted on 12/04/2020 5:52:16 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at noqreport.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: justicealito; no; pennsylvania; safeharbor; ummmno
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 next last
To: Fury
I do not believe the Insurrection Act strips the House of the ability to impeach, nor the Senate to convict. Someone suggested it does.

It doesn't. If they were to try another impeachement before Inauguration Day, I think that the Senate and Chief Justice would refuse to participate in that as a waste of time. That stated, I do think that it is important to address fraud in House and Senate races where present. A few extra seats in Congress makes impeachment threats unlikely, and demonstrates that election fraud issues were not limited to the presidential race.

Invocation of the Insurrection Act doesn't need to be as extreme as declaring martial law per se. By invoking the Insurrection Act, POTUS would deprive certain state governors from commanding the state National Guard and state militia. (According to Madison the militia is every able bodied male 15 years of age and older, although that definition is probably now considered sexist...) This would permit peaceful protesters to shut down the electoral college in problem states from meeting as scheduled on Dec. 14th. A more limited act would be to shut down Dominion servers during the scheduled GA run off electionl and force those votes to be counted by hand.
141 posted on 12/05/2020 9:37:13 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I’m certainly quite able! be wrong but I do not think President Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act.


142 posted on 12/05/2020 9:48:29 AM PST by Fury (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Appreciate your response.

I guess I was under the misguided notion that since SCOTUS stepped in for FL 2000 (a single state, why a federal issue?), under the 14th (”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”) that this would be entirely applicable in a situation where we have multiple states (thus, a federal issue?) in question. If FL could not guarantee its citizens equal protection in 2000, why does this not apply now across state lines? Furthermore, it’d seem that voting by absentee ballots vs. mail-ins vs. in person with varying degrees of authentication (to the extent any exists) across a single state would be violations of the 14th.

Just saying; thanks again.


143 posted on 12/05/2020 12:57:06 PM PST by mononymous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

No of course not but it makes a great argument.

In effect if he expires before being sworn, inaugurated, he is not President and the person receiving the second most votes for the presidency in the electoral college is in fact elected to the office..


144 posted on 12/05/2020 2:04:48 PM PST by bert ( (KE. NP. N.C. +12) t Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay My, o. h, my, what a wonderful day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: mononymous
If FL could not guarantee its citizens equal protection in 2000, why does this not apply now across state lines

That's a really good question. To me that lack of any good answers to that from the courts, and SCOTUS sitting this out so far leads to the question, was the Rhenquist Court politically active for Bush, or is the Roberts Court politically hostile to Trump? The only possible distinction is that in 2000 Bush brought the suit himself, while now Trump has relied on his campaign company. That leads to a legal issue about standing which the circuits split on, and needs SCOTUS to resolve, and they are taking their time on that..
145 posted on 12/05/2020 2:08:48 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: glennaro

This makes perfect sense.


146 posted on 12/05/2020 2:13:34 PM PST by redfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

I’m betting that the new USSC members who were personally involved in the 2000 election case will help swing any decisions toward Trump. I’m not ashamed of that naked partisanship on MY part either, as that as why each side fights so hard for their respective appointments. My concern, is that they will over-correct in an attempt to appear objective, as Roberts is at best already known for.


147 posted on 12/05/2020 2:22:07 PM PST by Golden Eagle (Born Free, as free as the wind blows..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9558phUwg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981

“if you prove something after the electoral college votes... then it’s too late because the electoral college has already voted”

That’s patently wrong... simply incorrect.

Include in that... that the law always assumes correctness in result... unless there’s a reason to find that what was assumed to be correct... was instead wrongly assumed ? That might often happen on appeal, with either findings or error in fact or in law... or simply as a result of additional information emerging, that had been wrongly withheld ?

Didn’t something like that happen to Gen. Flynn ?

An illegally won result, like any other fraud... isn’t made somehow sacrosanct only because a fraud being practiced succeeded... for a time. Generally, in those instances, what you find is that the error in assumption of correctness could not occur... without some misrepresentation.

Judges tend to be unforgiving of frauds on the court.

Didn’t Alito already mention, to PA, that it the plain text of the Constitution requires it is legislatures and not state elections officials that define the “manner” of holding elections ? And, you think he’s simply ignoring it and ruling against Trump when they poke him in the eye ?

I also disagree with you re Powell’s efficacy... but might be seeing designs in her efforts that you are not seeing ?


148 posted on 12/05/2020 9:30:19 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981

“If her case isn’t resolved by the time the EC votes, it’ll be dismissed as moot. “

That’s possible... but not necessarily the case.

It she proves the EC is improperly constituted... it ceases to be the EC... when a judge rules that it is not.

What you are discussing is not the requirements of law... but those of tradition, or custom... that presume no issue in law exists.

If “Russian interference” in the 2016 election was enough to remove Trump because of it, after the fact, in spite of his having been proven to have played no role in it ? That makes it clear enough that there IS NO DEADLINE re countering the impact of fraud in elections ? The one that does exist... as a practical matter... until you gin up the next round of impeachment trials... is the closure of process with the taking of office being allowed by a sufficient number to enable its legitimacy.

Assume a perfectly split vote... and two Presidents holding dueling inaugurations ? But, that can’t happen, right ?


149 posted on 12/05/2020 9:49:53 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981

Bellagio is correct this was about how the election could be conducted as with the vote by mail. Bush /Gore was about how to count the votes they didn’t question the validity of the election itself


150 posted on 12/06/2020 10:24:25 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

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

... That of the 6 contested states (AZ, GA, PA, MI, WI, NV) 5 of them have not only certified their results (as all 6 have) but have also transmitted their slate of electors to the archives.

You can click on the names of each state and see their certificate, signed by governors, listing the electors, and certifying the vote.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020
151 posted on 12/06/2020 8:48:14 PM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin
Safe Harbor is not some tradition that can be just ignored because SCOTUS feels like it. It's federal law.

SCOTUS isn't going to violate federal law just to help out terrible lawyers.
152 posted on 12/06/2020 8:58:07 PM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Sense
That’s patently wrong... simply incorrect.

It's not.

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argues that the electoral college can act as a safeguard against a manifestly unqualified candidate. In addition Washington wasn't elected via a popular election either time. That. plus the plain text of the constitution, tells us that the votes of the people on 11/3 and the votes of the electoral college on 11/14 are only as related as the state legislature wants them to be.

That means that once the electoral college has voted, it doesn't matter what happens with the 11/3 election, because it's been superseded by the 11/14 election (which is the one that really counts).

All those people saying "Biden isn't president-elect until the electoral college votes" are telling you the same thing. 11/14 is the vote that counts. Once they've voted, it's done.

Didn’t Alito already mention, to PA, that it the plain text of the Constitution requires it is legislatures and not state elections officials that define the “manner” of holding elections ? And, you think he’s simply ignoring it and ruling against Trump when they poke him in the eye ?

You're getting your cases mixed up.

There are 2 PA cases. In one the SCOPA extended the deadline for receiving mail in votes in direct contrast to the wording of Act 77. That resulted in about 10,000 votes that were received and might be counted. You're right, Alito very strongly hinted that the SCOPA couldn't overrule the will of the legislature even via the state constitution. He ordered those ballots segregated (saying they'd likely be thrown out).

The second case, the important one, involves the exact opposite logic. The PA legislature approved Act 77 which included excuse free mail in voting. It is possible that it violates the PA state constitution. But Alito indicated in the previous case that the state legislature is the ultimate authority and the SCOPA and state constitution couldn't really impede what the legislature wanted when it came to elections. By that logic, the mail in ballots will stand and Trump will lose PA.

No, I don't expect Alito to change his stance on the supremacy of the state legislature when it comes to elections. Which is why I believe the more recent Act 77 case will uphold the mail in ballots.
153 posted on 12/06/2020 9:10:28 PM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Sense
Nope. The electoral college is the electoral college. There is no provision in the law for a second vote or a redo. Once they vote, it's done.

The constitution provides for a method to remove a president improperly elected: Impeachment.

In elections, there very much are deadlines.
154 posted on 12/06/2020 9:12:44 PM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
Bellagio is correct this was about how the election could be conducted as with the vote by mail. Bush /Gore was about how to count the votes they didn’t question the validity of the election itself

Both were about what votes get counted and how.

The Act 77 lawsuit does not allege fraud. It does not question the validity of the election. It does not claim that ANY of the mail in votes came from people who weren't allowed to cast votes. It simply says that Act 77 goes against the PA state constitutions definitions on types of voting, and the Supreme Court of PA made a mistake in dismissing their case on laches.

Best case scenario, SCOTUS says "you shouldn't have dismissed the case. Hear it." and then kicks it back down to the PA Supreme Court. And there's not time for that to happen before the Electoral College votes.
155 posted on 12/06/2020 9:16:29 PM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981
I'm not disagreeing with anything other then this " there's not time for that to happen before the Electoral College votes"
Put yourself in Alito's shoes. say he wants to make PA follow their own state constitution and make Vote by mail not legal. how would you go about doing that after the election? First he would would first make sure Trump wins by other means. Then make the ruling.

The ONLY fixed date is January 20 all other dates can be changed

156 posted on 12/06/2020 9:52:14 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

Thanks again.

I imagine that whether or not the court is playing politics, they ought to be held to what is now precedent and surely one way to find out is for the suits I mentioned to be filed. It seems to me (not a lawyer) that if the 14th amendment applied then it must apply now, and going forward, whatever decision is made, it may help to prevent fraudulent elections to the level we are witnessing now. Thanks again.


157 posted on 12/07/2020 6:26:25 AM PST by mononymous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
I'm not disagreeing with anything other then this " there's not time for that to happen before the Electoral College votes"
Put yourself in Alito's shoes. say he wants to make PA follow their own state constitution and make Vote by mail not legal. how would you go about doing that after the election? First he would would first make sure Trump wins by other means. Then make the ruling.
The ONLY fixed date is January 20 all other dates can be changed


1) Federalism and the principle of state's rights says that the Feds don't get to interpret or enforce the state constitution. That's up to the state. Alito doesn't want to (and can't) " make PA follow their own state constitution". That's not a federal issue. The lack of a federal issue is why all these cases keep getting dismissed.

2) The constitutionally fixed date is January 20. However, the constitution gives congress the ability to set election dates and they have (11/3, 12/8, 12/14). Congress could theoretically overturn that, but that would require passing a law - which the House wouldn't and would be filibustered in the Senate. So as a practical matter, those dates are also set with the power of federal law/the constitution.

Safe harbor day is tomorrow. Anything not resolved by 11:59pm tonight is moot.

To resolve the PA case favorably to Trump, in the next 12.5 hours the SCOTUS would need to take the case, issue a decision remanding it to state court, the SCOPA would need to hear and resolve the case. Even if we ignore safe harbor, you'd essentially need a full SCOTUS hearing/case followed by a full SCOPA hearing/case sometime in the next 4 days. That's not enough time.

Just like Bush v. Gore, eventually the clock just runs out.
158 posted on 12/07/2020 8:33:45 AM PST by Boise3981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981

This wanders a bit from yours... but, thanks for getting me going... as where it leads is useful:

What the law provides doesn’t matter ?

That’s seen as “true” in at least two ways, three, really, with two of the three being true in fact.

First, if the what the law provides is wrongly understood ? That’s the game Democrats often play... deliberately misunderstanding the law, while testing its limits to see what Republicans will let them get away with. Turns out that usually means they’re allowed to get away with anything they want badly enough to try cheating at. Until Trump.

But, where that runs into difficulty is when, for instance, the electors are wrongly chosen... in violation of the law... and then declared rightly chosen... and advanced as legitimate. In the current instance, the entire election was held outside the law. The court would be right to find that no election was held in PA... because the mimic in the process that was conducted... doesn’t meet the requirements the law imposes to be considered an election under the law.

If there was no election... how can there be electors ? If there were no electors... they can’t vote as electors ?

The “deadline” has nothing to with it then ? Then they don’t squirt past the deadline and say “whew, snuck that one past ‘em” and get away with it ? Because, if they were fraudulently chosen... before the deadline... then they NEVER WERE electors ? And, the act of advancing them knowingly, in spite of the fraud... is perjury, at least ?

But, committing the perjury... doesn’t make a non-election into an election... or non-electors into electors ?

From there... you can “what if” what happens depending on what the SCOTUS finds when it looks at the issues ?

Even it you don’t start with the expectation that precedent is not limiting... that leaves a wide field.

Even if it were true (an error) that there was no precedent to consider re the inviolability of the curtain drawn by a “safe harbor” provision in a law... that appears it doesn’t actually apply in the case of a non-action taken, more when the non-action asserts the fact of the error being addressed and left unresolved. That’s a wrinkle that is still not properly employed if used in an attempt to dodge the parallel error in the incorrect claim re the lack of relevant precedent... when fraud seeks to avoid the operation of the law by subverting the legitimate process.

A relevant question then, might be... are there any other circumstances, conditions precedent, that might exist that would alter the function of the clock in legal proceedings ?

Then, of course, when facing an unprecedented situation... it is error to assume precedent is obviously controlling.

Beyond deliberate violations of law, deliberate sleights of hand in misdirection relative to what the law is, errors in interpretation of the law by various others, and error entrained in law that is inherently unconstitutional...

The Constitution, also, of course, provides for a method of determining a case when what the law provides... is wrong.

Then,there are other elements to consider, such as motive ?

Willingness of some to break the law is undisputed.

Errors of public officials... undertaken because of a gross misunderstanding of their legitimate role and the nature of their obligations in constitutional context ?

The biggest issue is that of the illusion that controls this country... crafted around the divide between the importance of the appearance of legitimacy in elections... and the much greater importance of safe0guarding the fact of it.

The election frauds are enabled, by both parties, under the false rubric of it being critically necessary to tolerate the fraud, because exposing it would lead to a loss of confidence in elections. And, confidence (the heart of every con game) is considered more important to sustain than the fact of legitimacy.

The only way to restore legitimacy... is to restore it in fact... while DESTROYING the argument that fraud must be tolerated to sustain the ILLUSION of legitimacy.

In the current case... the THREE arguments are... 1.) the law is being violated, 2.) the law being applied isn’t “the law” as sleights of hand operate misdirection to apply “law” that isn’t the law, and 3.) some elements of laws properly enabled... violate the Constitution.

Actually solving the problem requires adding to that, now, a fourth item... that 4.) a systemic fraud is practiced in wrongly yet broadly advocating to sustain extant frauds, even covering them up as a necessary element, which operates by fostering the belief that the illusion of legitimacy where it is in fact lacking... is more important to sustain than the fact.

The court must EXPOSE that argument... and obliterate it.

Sneaking past the “safe harbor” deadline... cannot be made to work in validating “something someone made up” as having the same force of law as real law... only because it was more convenient for some actors to ignore that their actions weren’t legitimate ? This case potentially becomes a VERY FUNDAMENTAL showdown between those different views of the law: The liberal view that says the law (as the Constitution) is “malleable” to allow it being interpreted however you want... as long as a pretense of legitimacy is sustained... and the conservative view that says the law... actually means something... and the requirement is substantive, not theater enabling a con game.

Courts are generally reluctant to engage in deciding political matters... for good reason. When the DOJ, perhaps at the heart of theater engaged in enforcing the “illusion” of legitimacy, says “its a civil matter”... does that make it so ? When does the criminality become so excessive that it can’t possibly be seen as “a political matter” rather than flagrant crime ?

When does an interest in having elections be viewed as legitimate... conflict with an actual requirement under law and the Constitution to tell the truth... and ensure elections ACTUALLY HAVE integrity... instead of only appearing legitimate in result of a conspiracy of silence ?

Perhaps we’ll find out in 2020 ?

While the Constitution is not a suicide pact... neither is the law properly purposed as the necessary legal enabling element when wrongful legislation is making it a suicide pact... only to sustain the illusion that it really matters.

If the SCOTUS fails to address the “minor” issue of the appearance versus the reality of legitimacy... and fail to obliterate the argument that appearances matter more than the substance... they will have missed the heart of the matter entirely.


159 posted on 12/07/2020 1:01:20 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Boise3981
said, "The constitutionally fixed date is January 20. However, the constitution gives congress the ability to set election dates and they have (11/3, 12/8, 12/14). Congress could theoretically overturn that, but that would require passing a law"

Those other dates other then January 20 are not law those are recommended days that we've lived up to.

What you're missing is this 45 days after the election (December 18th) on foreign interference in our elections will be reported on by DNI and DHS.
Also according to Sara Carter Durham is now looking into post 2020 election.

Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election signed on -- September 12, 2018

"Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

What i find most interesting in all this. The Kraken report which is very accurate on foreign interference they can't get a judge to listen to them. This shows a major problem with our court system. Though they do need the Kraken to be heard at a higher court which that is where they're taking it. It will likely take longer then the 18th this month.

160 posted on 12/07/2020 2:10:54 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson