Posted on 09/29/2020 4:22:38 PM PDT by karpov
Amy Coney Barrett is President Donald Trump’s latest nominee for the Supreme Court, and the scramble is already underway to read the inner workings of her mind on everything from abortion to where she sits on the spectrum from originalism to the “living Constitution.” Thanks to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, however, the question that should be on the top of every senator’s list is not merely how Barrett construes the Constitution, but how she reads the plain text of statutes, period. Barrett herself agrees, writing in a law review article this year that a textualist — which is how she identifies herself — “hews closely to the rules embedded in the enacted text, rather than adjusting that text to make it more consistent with its apparent purposes.”
Acting on a September 17 petition filed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, the four Democrats on the state’s seven-member high court rewrote a significant portion of the state’s election law, extending the statutory deadlines for postmarked ballots. The majority did so despite acknowledging that “there is no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly.” Instead, the Court decided that it should be “construed liberally.”
The Pennsylvania ruling is just the first pebble of what promises to be an avalanche of similar cases. Courts have already issued similar injunctions against enforcing mail-ballot deadlines in two other 2020 battleground states, Michigan and Wisconsin. These court decisions would not be so troubling if they were outside the mainstream of the conventional liberal approach to reading the plain language of statutes. Unfortunately, they are representative.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
The Demagogic Party doesn't want that new Justice appointed before the election.
I can see not requiring postmarks, since some mail doesn’t get postmarked. HOWEVER, then you must solve the ‘did this ballot get mailed before election day’ even without postmarks, just by counting only the ones that arrive on or before election day, which conveniently is what the law says. Also keeps, ahem, people from knowing how many fake ballots they need to gin up.
And the filthy democrats are trying to get her to commit to recusing like they did successfully to that worthless handjob Sessions.
The liberal justices will even with confessions on video of vote harvesting and money changing hands will rule that the orange man is bad
Methinks it will be more like Grant vs Lee ...
Idiotic DC and most state entities had since 2000 to make changes.
But the few liberals will be seeking out back in the penumbras and shadows and twists to make the Constitution "a living" one (and lying as well), as the Warren Court did with school prayer|church & state, and the Burger Court with Roe vs Wade.
19 states, including MI, NC, OH, TX and others have set the stage for a Supreme Court battle that will force the judges to invalidate millions of votes. These states have announced that they will accept mailed ballots up to 14 days AFTER Nov 3rd, guaranteeing massive fraud. This is going to be a disaster, and SCOTUS is going to have to untangle this mess.
Actually I believe in a “living Constitution”......It’s why the amendments procedure are specifically spelled out within it.
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.