Posted on 12/10/2020 5:59:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you want to see how a U.S. Supreme Court, packed to 13 or 15 with Joe Biden appointees, would act, then look at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is dominated by five elected Democrats.
In February 2018, the PA Court threw out the existing congressional district map and re-drew it according to its notion of "fairness."
In July 2020, the PA Supreme Court ruled in favor of Democrat Governor Wolf to continue his China virus emergency declaration.
In September 2020, the Court rewrote Pennsylvania election law to allow ballots received three days after Election Day, even without a postmark, to be counted. Further, it kicked off the ballot the Green Party candidate, who normally takes away votes from the Democratic candidate. The Court rewrote the clear language of the statute:
Deadline.--Except as provided under 25 Pa.C.S. § 3511[24] (relating to receipt of voted ballot), a completed mail-in ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.
This case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the argument that only the Legislature can set the rules for a federal election:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing* Senators.
On November 27, 2020, Judge McCullough of the PA Commonwealth Court issued a preliminary injunction to stop certification of the vote pending review because the Pennsylvania statute, Act 77, enacted on October 31, 2019, which provided for "no-excuse" mail- in voting, changed the Pennsylvania constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
On December 8, Justice Alito issued a one-sentence order to deny the request for an injunction.
Senator Kelly has the right to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case. But since the Court denied the request for an injunction, the Court will not hear the case. If it wanted to hear the case, it would have issued an injunction to stop the certification.
The PA Supreme Court did not question whether Act 77 is constitutional. Instead, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue, relying on a legal doctrine of “laches,” which means a party did not act promptly to file suit.
Laches is a judge-created “law” that gives a judge wide discretion to dismiss a suit if he believes that the litigant did not promptly sue.
Judges usually reject laches because the legislatures have enacted laws specifying the statute of limitations for the deadlines to file suit and to proceed once suit is filed. To apply laches requires an evidentiary hearing for the plaintiffs to explain why they waited to file suit so the judge has facts upon which to decide whether to apply laches and how the defendants are harmed.
The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to question why Governor Wolf allowed the election to proceed pursuant to a statute he knew was unconstitutional.
Further, the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and House of the PA Legislature. Why did the Republicans in the Legislature vote for Act 77 to allow no-excuse mail-in voting?
The votes of voters who voted in person were not treated equally because the no-excuse mail-in voters voted pursuant to an unconstitutional law. This is a denial of equal protection and due process.
The PA Supreme Court also said the mail-in voters would be disenfranchised. But that is the fault of Governor Wolf and his secretary of state, who created the problem, not the fault of those challenging an unconstitutional law.
Senator Ted Cruz urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review Kelly’s appeal.
The PA Supreme Court ruled to protect the “win” by Biden. This is consistent with its decision to rewrite the law to allow unlimited mail-in ballots received after the election date.
Two of the plaintiffs, Sean Parnell and Wanda Logan, may have lost because of the mail-in ballots.
The PA Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Act 77 because it knows that it is unconstitutional. It dismissed with prejudice on flimsy reasoning of laches without an evidentiary hearing on who was at fault in having an election based on an unconstitutional law.
The only hope is the suit filed by Texas and joined by 17 other states. The suit raises similar issues raised in the Kelly-Parnell suit: the election laws were changed unlawfully by the courts, the Legislature in PA, and the secretaries of state. The bottom line is that states that followed a constitutional system do not have their voters’ votes treated equally because Pennsylvania and the other three states held an unconstitutional election.
The difficulty for the Supreme Court is the remedy. If this involved an election to a minor local office, the Court would do its constitutional duty to set aside the election.
The Texas suit requests an injunction to stop certification and that the vote of the electors not be counted, or that electors be appointed in a constitutional manner.
But since the Court denied Kelly’s request for an injunction, it appears that the Court does not want to decide who won the election.
The Court cannot just set aside the election in the four states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — to resolve the issue of the proper electors for the presidential race because the elections involved many local races, state races, and House and Senate congressional races.
The Supreme Court will most likely rule that this is a political question that should be decided by the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin because the Constitution states that each state Legislature shall select the electors. The Court will pass the buck back to the politicians in the four states. This means that the Legislature of each state should investigate the election and make the decision.
“The Supreme Court will most likely rule that this is a political question that should be decided by the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin because the Constitution states that each state Legislature shall select the electors. The Court will pass the buck back to the politicians in the four states. This means that the Legislature of each state should investigate the election and make the decision.”
Well put, and this is the ingenuity of the suit - it banks on the SCOTUS being as cowardly as the lower courts. The remedy is black-letter, constitutional, and convenient.
If the legislatures fail, then it goes to the House, game over.
Too much inference. The Supreme Court could very well have decided not to hear a case that would’ve thrown Penna into turmoil without having any real impact on the presidential election, in favor of a case that involves enough states to overturn the election.
The Supreme Court will most likely rule that this is a political question that should be decided by the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin because the Constitution states that each state Legislature shall select the electors.
____________________________________________________-
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. If voter fraud was disenfranchising minorities, would the courts stay silent? Would they at least take the case in order to “send a message” about how serious an issue it is?
Yes! Amend the complaint to add two dudes who claim that the election as conducted deprived them of their right to get married, and the Court will definitely hear the case.
Maybe the Court is different now with RBG gone and ACB on board. Three of those effers are Trump nominees!
how important is it to follow the constitution and federal and state laws? I fear we have seen respect for the laws and constitution to have eroded to a point where even the court will ignore it. I have a little faith in the Supreme Court actually saying the constitution matters, Especially with Roberts as the chief justice.
RE: a case that involves enough states to overturn the election.
I do not like the use of the word “overturn”. This seems to imply that a fair election is being thrown out in favor of an arbitrary winner.
If massive fraud existed ( and there is much evidence for this ), the right word is RESTORE the true election results.
Is this why the demoncrats so blatantly and openly commit fraud???
Because they KNOW that courts are NOT WILLING to rule that fraud was committed???
We have courts in this nation to prevent bloodshed!
They better start doing their job!
RE: If the legislatures fail, then it goes to the House, game over.
Here’s a question ... what SHOULD the state legislatures do? ( and I note that the state legislature of the 5 MAJOR problematic states - PA, GA, MI, WI and Arizona are MAJORITY Republican ).
A Biden packed Supreme Court.
John Roberts and everyone else at SCOTUS knows fully well that Biden intends to add three more justices. At least.
If for nothing else, to protect his own authority and power, Roberts will side with the majority and overturn the steal.
My bet says...
They won’t rule at all, will toss it as soon as it comes up, just like PA, case closed, no discussion, next
How about READ the USC?
Art. II sect. I
If the legislatures fail, then it goes to the House, game over.
————————————
Yes indeed. However, the Senate gets the vice president pick. I could even take some comfort if somehow, someway Biden ends up stealing the election only to have a Republican, even Donald Trump, as VP.
Knowing, as we all do, that Biden is not long in this world.
Nope, only amicus briefs, support but no court filings, twitter garbage graphics. No other state is involved in actual court filing
RE: How about READ the USC?
OK, if the states choose the electors that will certify the stolen elections and vote Biden, it’s game over then.
Conversely, if they choose electors that will, given the evidence of massive fraud choose electors that will vote for Trump, it’s also game over.
In other words the state legislatures are the weakest or strongest link in this chain.
Either way, nearly half of the American voters are NOT going to accept the result.
“Ratio Transfers Proved; Entire Algorithm Reversed”
Looks like Dominion is using Speadsheet Software (ie:Open Office).
This makes it very easy to. manipulate Data. Every Row/Column intersection can be adjusted based on a simple mathematical Function.
Case Closed - Trump wins.
Fixed it
There are no more hills to fall back to. This IS the hill to die on.
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.