Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene

Law & Crime ^ | updated Dec 6, 2020 | Aaron Keller

[Sense]

Analysis of the linked article via ZeroHedge: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alito-moves-deadline-supreme-court-briefing-pennsylvania-case-bringing-within-safe-harbor

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.

Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.

Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requires that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.

In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.

[Dr. Franklin]

Is it possible a clerk just made an error and after all the publicity they realized they made a mistake?

Yes, that is quite possible. I expect SCOTUS will take the case and declare the election was not conducted according to statute, violating the Equal Protection Clause. Dershowitz agrees and says it will be a 5-4 vote. Maybe he is right, and maybe not. I think that possibly by a greater margin than that the Court will declare that the Equal Protection Clause was violate. As with Bush v. Gore the greater question is what is the appropriate remedy? They could disallow the mail in votes received without inspection by poll watchers or signature checks. That will cause a howl of protest from the left that actual citizens have been disenfranchised. They also could tell the PA legislature to solve the matter and get themselves out of the middle of the decision. We will see.

[itsahoot]

By moving it up one day... the court acts in timely enough fashion that their decisions will have immediate impact... and avoid passing “deadlines” for court action altering results.

So you are expecting an on the spot decision? One can hope I guess.

[thecodont]

I do not believe that the socalled “safe harbor” date was ever any kind of deadline in this case where the access to needed evidence was being hidden, covered up, delayed by defendants (basic legal principles would have tolled, delayed application of any such deadline anyway) but this sounds like a good change by Justice Alioto (may as well avoid need of even discussing such a claim, good!)

Praying for bold justice to be delivered!

[Sense]

You are never going to see huge majorities of people populating the pointy end of any spear ?

We have a lot of taxpayers, and relatively few Navy Seals ?

Most revolutions are enabled by the actions of distinct minorities... often in the range of just 1 or 2%... as was true of the American Revolution. But, if a majority prefer the craziness of the 1% over the oppression wrought by the status quo ? Then, they’ll either cheer them on... or just shrug and incidentally fail to provide the help for the bad guys as being demanded.

France... has its Yellow Vests ? We’re not even there yet ?

We’ve not seen genuine protests by the majority develop, yet, outside the context of politics... as Trump rallies ?

Wait until there’s a Yellow Vest style halt of trucking ?

Cities only have 3 to 5 days before people go hungry ?

We’re not there yet... much less at the point where anyone is calling for action that they’ll begin to take far more seriously... a tax revolt ? Starving people in the cities is one thing. Starving the beast itself... something else entirely ?

[philippa]

I received a letter from my state rep replying to my email. Among the usual crap about no hard evidence and the legislature has already adjourned was this: “If the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on this issue, I would certainly rely heavily upon their ruling in my decision- making process.” Sounds like he is willing to overturn the fraud if SCOTUS gives him cover.

[Sense]

I agree with that... twice over.

Once because hiding the evidence delivers reversible error.
“Safe harbor” fails as fraud when the “certifications” are frauds ? Electors wrongly appointed... aren’t electors ?

But, there is a “deadline” in the books... so, whether the argument for it is a good argument or not... it is an argument you can have... if you enable it. PA acted in a way that’s prevented it being made.

So, the result we do see ends up as a noise free argument.

Getting a clean dispute... goes a long way to getting a clear result.

[Hostage]

77, 78 legislators, also one report says 64 legislators, various reports. Anyways, many dozens.

I did not see that Justice Alito was responding to the PA legislators objections letter, only that he moved up the date to meet the Safe Harbor deadline, a deadline also in dispute. His date change clears the table of bickering over deadlines.

I read the PA State Legislators that signed the objections letter did so to avoid criticism from their constituents. That may be a legitimate action as it does not appear the official PA legislature backed the letter.

R. Giuliani tweeted Friday I think that he was very disappointed in the PA legislature and would not trust them in the future, that they led him on and then abandoned him. So this is not an endorsement of the integrity of the PA legislature even though they are Republican, probably in name only.

The objections letter was I believed addressed to PA’s members in Congress. On Jan 6, 2021, a joint session of Congress is held with VP Pence acting as Senate President. In that joint session, VP Pence will hear any objections to the chosen Electors. If at least one US Senator from PA and one Rep from PA object to the Electors, Congress must go into a two hour deliberation and then come back for a full vote. With Pelosi still controlling the Democrat majority, it’s unlike this avenue for changing Electors will have any success.

So, to me, the objections letter is a nothingburger. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[dontreadthis]

Alito moved up the date and set a specific time. Very unusual to set a time.
I believe that he (for the majority) will rule by the end of the day on Dec.8 He did not speed up the deadline just to deny it.
He will avoid any additional litigation by being in by the safe harbor deadline.
Mike Kelly’s standing in this suit is key: he wants to know what to do when the GA electors are read to Congress.
We then need a congressman in the other swing states to bring immediate suit based on the SCOTUS ruling.

[Sense]

I might note that a huge portion of the responsibility for this mess... rests at the SCOTUS’ feet.

When the three major political parties in Washington State (Libertarians, Democrats and Republicans all joining on the same side) sued the Secretary of State, Sam Reed, for violating their rights of free association... it went to the Supreme Court three times.

The impacts of the result... include that political parties lost the ability to provide any quality control on the candidates who end up reaching the ballot while using their names.

In avoiding a responsible decision in round 3 of that contest, the court in essence used one of the dodges discussed here recently... claiming that the wrong being done to you might in fact be killing you, but until you’re dead you don’t have a valid argument to make. Not that murder isn’t occurring... only that it can’t be charged without there being an already dead body.

Having failed in that opportunity to make (and require others to make) more responsible choices... the decision further opened the doors to an already overly wide ability to sustain frauds in elections.

In result of that decision, Libertarians lost major party status in Washington, and many left to form the Tea Party to take over the Republican Party... as the only viable path left to follow, to win the ability to fix the problem.

That’s worked... even to the point of winning the Presidency for a non-deep state populist...

But, it also allowed the problem being exposed to fester and spread rot for another quarter of a century... perhaps in result making the patient so weak, as unable to survive the removal of the cancer, now...

I guess we’ll find out...

[Sense]

Yes. Wrong.

Lots to quibble about in many aspects... but not a lot of profit in doing so in detail, so high points only in a couple of things.

First, in cans having been kicked down the road, a bit, already ? Not clear, now, what SCOTUS will say or how what they say (or, NOTE, how other events unfolding concurrently) will alter the PA legislators opinions, or willingness to express them. Include in that... it being a proper result in the legislators motivated by fear of constituents... more as expecting little seen thus far will quell the rising tide of anger ? As fraud is proven, more over time... do you expect them to come out in support of it... even if they knowingly enabled it, and really do prefer it ? Cowards are predictable, at least.

Mine isn’t an assertion of heroism in the PA legislature ? It may only be minimalism tied to a craven survival instinct... with the cowards avoiding taking a stand on doing the right thing as much as possible ? But, if that is it... its still all and only good for us... even if they got to the most right result for the wrong reasons.

Otherwise, however, re: “If at least one US Senator from PA and one Rep from PA object to the Electors, Congress must go into a two hour deliberation and then come back for a full vote. With Pelosi still controlling the Democrat majority, it’s unlike this avenue for changing Electors will have any success.”

I’ll wait to see how many do object... which won’t occur today... and see how that might influence events, then.

Then, Pelosi may or may not not control the Democratic majority in the House... although she may exercise some degree of control over the House of Representatives as Speaker... the process that is followed is still not one that is under her control ?

The House is half of it... the Senate is the other half... and Mike Pence is the tie breaker ? Over-simplifed... so... when electors are presented as “certified” ?

“Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision;”...

And, then, keep reading...

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

[Sense]

For Republican strategists... I couldn’t imagine a more useful result in this entire process... than to have Pelosi forced into defending a fraudulently created slate of electors.

At what point do you think the rest of the Democrats might think to opt out and refuse to follow her off that cliff ?

How many do you need to make that choice ?

Should prove highly entertaining, at least...

[Sense]

Are you misreading the context to require it be a House member and Senator from PA ?

If Mo Brooks and Ted Cruise object ?

“signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives”

What if every Republican in the House and Senate sign the objection... and not just the two ?

“all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes... shall be opened, presented, and acted upon...

So, if one PA state legislator, of a few of them, send in papers claiming there were no legitimately created electors in PA due to fraud... that has to be acted upon, and the dispute resolved, in front of the CSPAN cameras... just as the SCOTUS seems it has to resolve the controversy soon to be placed before them ? So any controversy put before the President of the Senate... has to be addressed by him... and acted upon... ?

Have I not made clear that what PA did... was leave an unresolved controversy ?

[Sense]

Perhaps also useful to consider procedural concerns ?

States still in contention, now, (before considering possible expansion modes) include...

Arizona

Georgia

Michigan

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Note, that list is those states... in alphabetical order ?

So, before we even ever get to hearing about the existence of disputes in Pennsylvania, we get to hear how disputes are resolved in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada ?

Do you think it matters, in considering those... whether a pattern of frauds are proven in those instances, within them, or between them, before the matter of Pennsylvania is introduced ?

[Hostage]

I already posted a thread couple weeks back about the Jan 6 Joint Session but my source was direct from the Congressional Research Service of Congress.

My point was this objections letter of 65-75 PA legislators may have had nothing to do with Justice Alito’s moving up the date/

Because the objections letter I read was direct to the PA delegation in Congress and not to the Supreme Court.

Was there another objections letter to SCOTUS? Was SCOTUS cc’d on the objections letter to the PA delegation in Congress as amicus? How many such letters are there?

Legislatures don’t send letters to the Supreme Court in my experience. They file writs or amicus briefs. And for such filings to be recognized as a state legislature action, I believe it would be need to be backed by a full vote of the legislature and certified by the legislative Speaker.

I just don’t see the connection of a letter from a group of PA legislators and Justice Alito.

I do see the Kelly lawsuit appeal to SCOTUS and that would be the vehicle on which Justice Alito would act.

Don’t think here’s a PA legislature letter to Alito, don’t see it, can’t find it, not even an amicus.

[peggy48]

Amen and amen.

[Sense]

What happens... if the objection filed in Arizona... claims the existence of a conspiracy between the states, or between persons in them... including in Arizona... to conspire, or form an unconstitutional compact or association between states, that seeks to alter the results of elections... and/or intends to undermine the operation of the electoral college ?

Unpack that ?

a conspiracy
a compact
an association

states
individuals

to enable changing election results
to undermine the electoral college

Wouldn’t that then have to be resolved... before moving on from Arizona to any other business ?

I think the answer is... yes, if Mike Pence says so ?

[Sense]

Did the PA legislature send you a copy of the letter ?

And, yet, you seem aware enough of it... that it has influenced your opinions... and motivated you to act (as your posting here shows) ?

Justices are people... pretty well informed people, generally, and typically not rocks or mushrooms.

If you are expecting nothing ever happens without formal communication... that’s just a basic misunderstanding of how the world works.

[Sense]

“And for such filings to be recognized as a state legislature action, I believe it would be need to be backed by a full vote of the legislature and certified by the legislative Speaker.”

That’s worth addressing.

When is the last time you saw a writ, a brief, a filing, a bill... a letter... issued from a Legislature... duly certified, etc., the content of which was “we declare that we are taking no action, and further believe in the circumstance that we cannot legitimately take any action”... such as certifying the result of an election, or qualifying a slate of electors ?

Does the assertion have any meaning ?

PA didn’t take any action. Sort of the point.

The letter... perhaps explains WHY they didn’t, and why they believe they couldn’t, take the actions some apparently expected of them ?

When it is their duty to act... and they don’t because some conflict exists that prevents it... what impact results ?

Try it with your kids (maybe in 2022?). To attend school... the school requires a certification that they’ve been vaccinated. Send them to school without it... and determine if there is a consequence attached to failing to certify their status as required ?

In PA that question reverts TO the question ? Was there a question ASKED of the Legislature... that intrinsically requires that there must be an answer... in the form of action taken... to resolve a controversy ?

If so, then the lack of action... is an answer... even if it fails the test of being the certified formal result that is required for that action to have the expected positive effect ?

Clear enough ?

What’s the implication of having a controversy that must be resolved... and having it persist rather than be resolved?

[OSHA]

Some men need to be reminded that better men than we are left bloody footprints on frozen ground at Valley Forge and their very life’s blood on foreign fields and beaches to secure our freedoms.

I don’t wish to die but I owe many a great debt, especially to those founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

I would rather die fighting for my grandchildren’s freedom rather than live to see them enslaved.

I don’t think we are at that point yet but the Minutemen were ready before they were needed.

Plus we already have our General Washington!

[Don Corleone]

I don’t wish to die but I owe many a great debt, especially to those founders who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

Can any of us be expected to do less?