Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Posted on 12/07/2020 10:19:31 AM PST by Jess Kitting
On Sunday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito moved up the deadline for officials in Pennsylvania to submit their responses to a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), in a bid to overturn the state’s election certification and toss out mail-in ballots.
Alito, who oversees matters before the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, had originally called for response arguments from state officials to be filed by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 9, but he changed that yesterday morning to Tuesday by 9 a.m., Law&Crime reported, adding the change is “crucial.”
As noted by Kelly in his 50-page lawsuit application, federal election law establishes a “safe harbor” deadline that mandates controversies “concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures” must be determined “at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors.”
The original deadline set by Alito — Dec. 9 — did not take into account that safe-harbor window, but his new deadline does.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
Which can then be applied in other pleadings elevated for their consideration.
No. He oversees the case as the “circuit judge” but the whole panel votes to do anything or nothing.
He can if he rejects the case out of hand . . . otherwise, it goes to the full court where we should be able to expect a 5-4 ruling for the president.
The lone Justice decides whether to grant an injunction. The case itself usually is taken by the SCt if there are 4 votes to hear it. The decision is based on the votes of a majority.
Bump
“...it goes to the full court where we should be able to expect a 5-4 ruling for the president.”
Don’t count your chickens.
I hate to be a killjoy but by the logic that the state legislatures have and absolute constitutional power to determine the method of the selection of electors that cannot be restricted by either law or even the state constitution, then this law, as an expression of the will of the legislature, is constitutional. That being said, the legislature could still change the method of the selection of electors prior to them actually meeting and voting for the president, also a product of their absolute constitutional authority.
On a second note, the changes made by the governor and the courts went against the method determined by the legislature. This should properly invalidate the election.
I said “should” not “will.” There is no way they would be justified in letting this coup continue.
Yep! I don’t see any open door for the president. This is one hot potato nobody wants to deal with. If the lower courts didn’t even want to see or review the evidence along with our very own Republican elected officials I do not see the Supreme Court making any ruling. I think they’ll just punt for the sake of reputation. Roberts certainly will not vote for it and the rest of the rats. Maybe two of the supreme court justices will vote in favor of DJT but I do not see Amy siding with Trump. Excuse my Debbie downer sentiment but I have no faith in the legal system or our very own traitorous party reps...I’m just done with the lot of them!! FINISHED! FINIS!
If the leftist criminals and their spineless Republican co-conspirators don’t want to be bound by the Constitution, then neither shall we.
They don’t have absolute power.
The Chiafalo case points that out. For example, their decision on Electors can’t violate the Equal Protection Clause.
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892):
The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several States. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the State at large, or in districts, as are members of Congress, which was the case formerly in many States; and it is, no doubt, competent for the legislature to authorize the governor, or the Supreme Court of the State, or any other agent of its will, to appoint these electors. This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the States by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their State constitutions any mote than can their power to elect Senators of the United States. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.
Go read the SCOTUS case that I cited
The case at hand has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause but the claim that the state law establishing “no-excuse mail-in” voting was a violation of the state constitution. Since the freedom of the state legislature to establish the method of the selection of electors cannot be restricted by the state constitution, this case should fail. There are, however, other forms of relief that could be made, as I have pointed out.
Sheesh, I didn’t say it was an Equal Protection case
You stated power was absolute
I said it was not and gave you an example
I told you to go read that case that I quoted from that indicated the POWER IS NOT ABSOLUTE
My remarks were in relation to the claims of the case at hand. That should have been understood.
and in this case, they will also not have absolute power
It does come with constraints...that are not exactly spelled out..but warned about in the case I cited.
Where will the first violent act of rebellion begin.
I don’t see the “Stop the Steal” folks settling for court rejection.
The questions are When? Where? How big? Not if!
There are many veterans who risked their life for our country, and they see this as a greater threat than a foreign war.
There are people who are terminal cancer and know they are dying anyway that want to make a difference.
This is not looking good. I pray for our country. May it be peaceful.
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.