Posted on 12/06/2020 3:39:53 PM PST by dontreadthis
Congressman Mike Kelly has brought suit in PA contesting the constitutionality of the changes to PA's election laws. The suit started at the lowest PA state court and was rejected at the PA Supreme Court.
Kelly immediately petitioned SCOTUS as a congressman who wants to know what to do when he sits in a joint session of congress as to accepting PA's slate of electors; thus his standing in this is critical at a federal level.
A similar case reached Alito last month, but the relief being sought was not granted. This is the case where Alito wanted the late ballots segregated. Of importance, in that decision Alito wrote:
"The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office.
The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf
Sounds to me that Alito is not happy with what PA's Supreme Court and Gov. did.
So then Kelly's case gets to SCOTUS asking for an injunction (to stop or rescind certification) and a ruling on the merits of the case, i.e. was what PA did constitutional. (I think we already know what Alito thinks.)
Alito says SCOTUS will take the case and sets a date for receipt of opposing counsel's counter argument to a day after the Safe Harbor date of Tues.Dec. 8.
Then, today, on a Sunday, he moves that date up to Tuesday. Moreover, he specifies a time, 9am, by which opposing counsel's brief must be submitted. (From what I have seen and heard, it is very unusual to specify a time. Deadlines are usually simply a date and briefs can be submitted by 11:59pm to meet the deadline.) Enjoy the thought of those leftist lawyers scrambling to meet the deadline.
The Safe Harbor Provision is a very vague federal statute:
"The U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. §5) provides that if election results are contested in any state, and if the state, prior to election day, has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if these procedures have been applied, and the results have been determined six days before the electors’ meetings, then these results are considered to be conclusive, and will apply in the counting of the electoral votes."
The "procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes" could mean state lawsuits, federal lawsuits, administrative or legislative hearings for all intents and purposes. The statute is not specific so that if controversy over electors exists in a state, the dates of Dec. 8 and Dec 14 are not set in stone.
See: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1359230/Electoral_College_Deadlines_White_Paper.pdf?p=pdf
Of course, the left and the msm will push to have these dates set in stone, but Alito has avoided this controversy in PA by moving up the date, and then hopefully (if not expectedly) giving Kelly and us a favorable SCOTUS ruling by the end of the day on Tuesday. Exactly what the ruling would be should have its basis in the unconstitutionality of PA's election and thus selection of electors. What this will mean we don't know yet, but I expect those electors not able to be certified. And what this means for the down ballot in PA I can't begin to imagine.
Now assuming that Kelly prevails, precedent will immediately exist for any congressman or senator in any other swing state to bring an immediate petition to SCOTUS if their state violated the constitution with changes to their election laws. And if they file after Tuesday but there is ongoing litigation or other ongoing procedures in their states that are contesting the election, then controversy regarding violating the Safe Harbor Provision can be overcome.
At the least, this SCOTUS ruling should give some spine to the state legislators to finally do something.
And as a final backstop on Jan 6 when the electors are presented to a joint session, Pence or any congressman plus senator can cite this SCOTUS ruling and deny the slate.
I welcome any well-aimed flaming.
God Bless our Founders and this country.
I certainly will not hold my breath on that happening. They had time, and they appear disinterested. Makes one think they are okay with Biden stealing the election.
Bookmarking
I wonder if he would also join Mo Brooks in stating that he had no confidence in the integrity of the Nov 3 vote and therefore the electoral vote for Biden would be thrown out by Congress.
Praying and trusting God’s awesome authority in this!
Well,what if SCOTUS rules the election and the electors from it were voided? Their choice is then either to sit out the presidential election as a state or pick their own electors. They would be sure to take interest. As sure as the left would be to flood the zone with faux outrage and start lobbying them to pick Biden’s electors. Withholding the same states for which flipping puts Trump over 269 leaves both under 269. Which is a win for Trump and a verdict of cowardly from both sides.
No, they can contest the slate so long as one senator and one congressman combine to contest. It then goes to the House and the Senate where a majority must agree to deny the states electors. With the Democrats holding the House what is the chance of that?
i’m not sure how that goes. I believe also needs at least one from the Senate side to be possible. But whether it needs majority vote by member of both House and Senate (we lose House, might win Senate) or whether House majority is via vote by state (we likely win) I don’t know. There’s also been some talk of scenarios in which President of Senate decides stuff by himself in which case Pence would do the right thing and suddenly become more hated by the left than Trump himself. The lesson of 1876 is that there was enough wiggle room in a divided congress then for a creative outcome. If SCOTUS speaks it would help if they’d provide a clarifying decision.
while I agree that the procedure you describe is part of the process, it’s a 100x more involved than that.
The article below by a Conn Law Prof is mind-blowing as to what maneuvers can occur. He wrote it before the Dem primaries, and he expected Warren to be the nominee. He games it out to the nTH degree, just substitute Biden for Warren.
On page 326 begins the period from Jan. 6 to Jan. 20
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj
What this will mean we don't know yet, but I expect those electors not able to be certified. And what this means for the down ballot in PA I can't begin to imagine
If these contests over Electors from swing states prevail in court - such that, in PA for example, all ballots counted after election day are thrown out, who knows what that does to the composition of the House???In the best case, Nancy isn’t speaker!
I don’t want to
“Feel Good.”
.
I want to hear
Biden “Concede.”
Thank you for the SCOTUS good news.
Continue to pray that God will have mercy on this nation.
Me too.
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.