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.
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
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...
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?