Alito Responds To Appeal Asking To Block Biden Win In PA

I’m no legal expert either, but I did find what I thought was an enlightening paragraph describing the legal term “laches”:

The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. Cases in law are governed by statutes of limitations, which are laws that determine how long a person has to file a lawsuit before the right to sue expires. Different types of injuries (e.g., tort and contract) have different time periods in which to file a lawsuit. Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations. However, unlike statutes of limitations, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief.

The PA SC’s opinion is that too much time has passed for someone to claim the 2018 changes were unconstitutional. IMHO that’s ridiculous since the 2018 actions and subsequent modifications were unconstitutional with both PA and US Constitutions.

One of the things missing from the discussion seems it is actual awareness of the law. So, here it is:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Maybe just the way I’m wired, as I find Trump’s trolls generally full of humor. Did you see he named the media server for the victory rally today as “Make America Great Again”... and set the password as “Stolen Election!” ?

When I read the first paragraph of 3USC15 I note that its appointments of “tellers” mirrors what we see in the purpose and intent of election observers at the local level. I’d advise that Pence should, first, order the House tellers into a glass cage 50 feet away from the Senate tellers... and, second, provide the certificates to the Senate tellers... and, third, give the empty envelopes to the House tellers... none of which appears it would violate the law.

After they quit screaming... perhaps THEN they can calmly explain why they have a problem with that arrangement ?

/s... ?

Include in the awareness that 3USC6

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/6

requires not that Governors “communicate the results” in a slate of electors that others produce... but that the law says that BEFORE they do that... they have a duty to ensure the process was conducted in accordance with the law.

The resulting slate of electors is determined “by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment”...

If a governor instead forwards a slate of electors whose ascertainment was determined... outside the law ? The Constitution says that the “manner” in process is up to the state legislature. The majority of the legislature says the result of the election is unreliable... as they don’t agree the law was followed ? So, the governor’s job is to... ???

Given the lawful ascertainment is supposed to involve the results of legitimately held elections, how can an unlawful election... one that doesn’t follow the law... result in a slate of electors that is properly ascertained to have been selected in a manner that complied with the law ?

That’s why I’m not critical of the PA legislature refusing to act in the way some insist they should. When the result of the election you held is over-cooked... you can’t simply decide that you’ll pretend you’d ordered the perfectly done beef wellington instead of the over-done fried chicken gizzards ? Send it back to the kitchen, noting its obvious imperfections... without the displeasure requiring quibbles that the waiter must have submitted the wrong order ?

It would be better, still... if they did have the spine to be a bit more direct in addressing the findings saying the election was over-cooked... ?

But, does the letter sent by the majority... fulfill their obligation in the lawful purposes you might note as subtext... IF the governor were to err in forwarding a slate of electors chosen in a manner that was not fully compliant with the law ?

Take note of your own statement - re how the hate filled actors on the other side are in FACT being constrained in vision, if not in action, by their own bile ?

I wrote a few more pointed comments on the topic here but opted to not post, for now. Saved it on my desktop, though, and might post the 5 December view in a few days.

I’ll toss this in the “narrowly focused view” mix:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12

And, then, will mention this... which I find compelling for a couple of reasons that others might not. I find it is an EXCELLENT study in divergent understanding, expectation, opinion and belief. And character, or the lack of it. Also, courage... or the lack of it ?

But, definitely, also consider... judgement ?

Do you know what you are up against ? The character, skill, and ability of your opponent ? Or, consider that what you assume to be an incapacity, might well be only a well honed capacity to exercise proper restraint ? Too much restraint becomes a liability... when ?

This Is Why You Don’t Spit on a Trump Supporter
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3912488/posts

Watch the linked video... all of it... and it is AMAZING in what it reveals.

Relevant here, still... only in context of the question:

What would a comparable video of a legal contest look like ?

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.