Posted on 02/23/2021 6:34:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats. Challenge illegalities in the last election with a good case, and you're stuck in a classic Catch-22 situation, as Ace pithily sums it up:
Before the inauguration: Not timely
After the certification: Moot
The two cases the Court declined to hear challenged the last-minute changes to election law in Pennsylvania. Never mind that the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures the power to prescribe "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives"; the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election by declaring the case moot.
Justices Thomas and Alito wrote dissenting opinions, with Justice Gorsuch concurring with Alito. Tyler O'Neil summarizes:
Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented "a clear example" of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. "The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days."
"That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas argued. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
So much for having a conservative “constitutional” court.
This was settled law and the crooks on the Left don’t give a damn.
Barrett has proved to be a whimpering coward.
The Supreme Court didn’t allow this travesty. The Pennsylvania legislature did.
How can a fraudulent election be considered moot?
No justice, no peace.
What sort of behavior should a rational,decent person expect from an institution that summarily legalized abortion and gay marriage? Why is anyone suprised that the Supreme Court is complicit with a fraudulent election? Forget about the Supreme Court as an instrument of justice.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin
So much for that. But we did last for a good while.
I’m guessing that her kids and family were threatened in some way. On the other hand, she should’ve known this would come with the territory, especially with the political climate we were and are now in.
Bottom line. You’re there to do a job that few are chosen or trusted to do. So do it. Yes. “A whimpering coward”.
I would agree, the way I see it, the Legislatures had the Authority to right this wrong and they chose not to.
She will do what Roberts tells her to do.
"Here Amy, iron my shirt...."
If it is now legal to accept votes 3 days after the election, why not a week? Why not a month after the election?
Charles Thomas was appointed to the court years before John Roberts, so why is Thomas not the chief justice?
If he were, we would have a much better court.
If it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, Roberts would have allowed it to be heard.
It’s akin to a boxing match in which one fighter is repeatedly clobbered below the belt, with his complaints to the referee all but ignored.
The quickest way, then, to stop the cheating would be to start kicking the perp in the nuts.
Problem solved.
The Constitution only stipulates that all of the presidential electors certified by each state must convene and cast their votes on the same day.
‘the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election...’
well, consider this; let’s say the state legislature changes the rules, and they adopt the same rules as the high court did...? would that make everything ok, if the results ended up the same, because it was the legislature doing it...? everyone would just say ‘oh, well since the legislature changed the rules, well then, better luck next time...’?
put aside the fact that the rules were the same for pubs and dems, mail in voting as open to take advantage of for pubs as for dems...the obvious elephant in the room here is there are far more dems able to vote, and if they turn up in numbers, the pubs would lose every time...
of course, on this site the remedy for this is to further divide the pubs along pure ideological lines; but, whatever...
RE: The Supreme Court didn’t allow this travesty. The Pennsylvania legislature did.
Even so, The Supreme Court should take the case if only to how that what the PA legislature did was AGAINST the constitution.
If the SCOTUS won’t even take this, which is clearly a Constitutional issue, then they’re useless.
RE: let’s say the state legislature changes the rules, and they adopt the same rules as the high court did...?
That’s the point, they are NOT ALLOWED to as per constitution. Can the legislature of the United States for example, change the election rules by law to allow non-citizens to vote? Even if they did this, would it be constitutional.
Well said
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.