[OldGoatCPO]

I am not saying you are wrong. But remember, true constructionist judges are apolitical. They do not feel they owe Trump anything. As such, they will not take a case that is weak on the face of it. If Trump has evidence they need to produce it now so Alito agrees. Right now this case is really weak. They are not even addressing 600,000 potentially illegal votes. Why? Just to get before SCOTUS there has to be strong evidence of fraud. The way I understand it without a voters referendum election laws in PA cannot be modified or changed. I thought that was the actually case, I am surprised it is not.

[Agamemnon]

The way I understand it without a voters referendum election laws in PA cannot be modified or changed.

Act 77 which allowed for mail-ins was passed by the PA legislature. Voter's referendum was not required beyond electing Reps and Senators in the first place. The law required all ballots to be in by 8PM Nov 3 to be counted.

Any change in that voids the law entirely and renders mail-in votes unlawful by definition. SoS and Gov and PA Supr Ct behaved unlawfully in allowing extensions of time to receive ballots (to Nov 6) and by not requiring signature verification or assured ballot custody.

Delaware County PA has lost all records of custody. If those ballots alone are rejected due to this, Trump wins PA hands down. Lot's of wheels turning here.

There are several routes of possible success for Trump in PA, and not all the cases that are filed have been filed by Trump's campaign. None of the fraud cases have been filed by Trump, only ones involving the counting of lawfully cast ballots.

FReegards!