Pennsylvania's Democrats filed a silly, dishonest Supreme Court brief: Justice Alito was expecting more when he demanded that Pennsylvania respond to a lawsuit Republicans filed challenging mail-in ballots

In October, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took it upon itself to hold that mail-in ballots could arrive after Election Day if they were mailed on November 3 and, almost as if to ensure fraud, that those mail-in ballots without postmarks would be presumed to have been timely. An eight-justice U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the matter. After the election, though, Justice Alito ordered Pennsylvania segregate mail-in ballots, indicating further review. Republicans duly filed a request for review, and, on Tuesday, Pennsylvania filed its unimpressive opposition brief.

Pennsylvania's opening argument is that there's no way the Supreme Court should decide whether a state engaged in unconstitutional conduct in a federal election because doing so is just too big!

Shipwreckedcrew, whose legal analyses at RedState are always must-reads, correctly writes that this is an insulting argument:

While there are certainly different levels of historic significance when considering the role of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Defendants seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is the institution which outlawed racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education; recognized states' ability to regulate private enterprises in Munn v. Illinois; Congress could regulate the sale of commodities that never left a state as having an effect on "interstate commerce" in Wickard v. Filburn; refused to allow the government to use illegally seized evidence in a criminal prosecution in Mapp v. Ohio; etc.
The idea that the Supreme Court should shrink from making difficult choices in reaching a decision in a case before it due to the claim by Pennsylvania that no court has ever done this before is moronic. Yes, it's never been done before.
Also yes — no State has ever conducted an election in a manner that violated the State's own Constitution.

The problem with Pennsylvania’s argument:

The idea that the Supreme Court should shrink from making difficult choices in reaching a decision in a case before it due to the claim by Pennsylvania that no court has ever done this before is moronic. Yes, it’s never been done before.

Also yes — no State has ever conducted an election in a manner that violated the State’s own Constitution.

The argument also fails because it’s a variation of the “you can’t disenfranchise Biden voters” fallacy that lies at the core of everything that the pro-Biden faction (which includes a lot of RINOS) asserts.

That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that “voter” is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.

The “Pennsylvania Voters will be disenfranchised” argument assumes what they have not proven. The ASSUME that the votes cast in PA are ALL VALID when evidence shows that a huge number are not.

Do you know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes? You identify the winner and loser in an election, as has happened in America since 1792. Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised; they just voted for the losing candidate.

It’s absurd to even discuss the merits of the Democrat response.

They are engaged in a massive criminal enterprise to seize the sovereign power of the United States, and we’re supposed to take their prattling about judicial overreach seriously?

These are the people who have used the courts for 4 generations to remake the country in ways the electorate opposed. Now they’re upset about a judge enforcing clear Constitutional norms (no umbras or penumbras needed!) in an obvious case of electoral fraud?

Please.

I think Pennsylvania will make a similar argument in the Texas case. That’s all they got.

I hope the USSC busts them hard. The state’s actions brought this on and they should deal with the consequences.

There electors should be disqualified in the presidential election. Congress can deal with the fallout from no candidate reaching 270 votes. It’s provided for in the US Constitution.

So? The Court already decided to “deny” the relief sought, and issued a whole 1 sentence statement to that effect. To add insult to injury, it was stated “without dissent” meaning not even Thomas or Amy weighed in on our side.

Who cares if the PA response is ridiculous given that? (I agree, BTW). Far as I can see, the PA case is going nowhere - unless the Court is, as some have suggested, “wrapping” it up within the Texas / 7 other states case.

PA’s Senator Toomey showed his true colors by demanding that President Trump concede. He sez it’s silly and fruitless for Trump to continue his efforts (to have a corrupt election rectified). Concession is not in Trump’s thesaurus. He will not concede to a gang of criminals and have that as his eternal legacy. He took an oath to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. And that is precisely what he is doing, and will do until this atrocity upon our Nation is fully rectified and punished.

Actually, the case made by Pennsylvania would be a very reasonable argument. Certainly, the Supreme Court “overturning” what the media has declared to be an election outcome is quite drastic.

But this is already that sum-of-all-fears case that Pennsylvania warns about. And it was not the legislature which created it, but a lower court. In essence, the lower court is declaring that IT can fix national elections, and there’s nothing any other state or higher court can do about it. And that’s the nonsense.

I think the Texas case includes a lot of this. Not only can they correct the PA fraud but the other states also. What they did was against the constitution and even there own states constitution. They could throw out all ballots counted after they stopped. Or the mail ins. The state legislature is the only one that can change the state rules. And they weren’t involved. They may kick it back to the state legislature to decide who gets the EV. They could kick all those states out and no one gets the votes. I hope they do something. Other wise they know they will pack the Supreme Court.

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.