BREAKING: Justice Alito MOVES deadline in Pennsylvania election suit to BEFORE ‘safe harbor’ deadline!

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gam197

Guest

The date has been moved prior to electors.safe harbor deadline.
In strict theory, the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to settle Pennsylvania constitutional issues, such as whether the state statute at question (Act 77) violates the state constitution. Generally, such matters are the exclusive realm of a state supreme court. But there are exceptions to that general concept, Kelly argues, including here. Because the state is acting under a “direct grant of authority” from the U.S. Constitution to manage federal elections, the U.S. Supreme Court can become involved, he argues, and can determine whether the Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional regime of laws violates the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So, @gam197 , what do you think the remedy would be if the mail in voting is unconstitutional?
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what will be discussed or why he change the date. I think we will hear more about this.
 
The date was changed so that it at least had an opportunity to be heard before becoming moot. A safe harbor provision requires legal questions about electors to be settled by Wednesday, hence moving it to Tuesday.

The lawsuit is interesting, but I cannot imagine any remedy that would include overturning this past election. It might change future elections in PA.

Decertifying the election would mean not just decertifying Biden, but also most state legislators. There would be precious few officials around who might appoint new electors, mainly the Democratic governor…
 
Dovekin said:
A safe harbor provision requires legal questions about electors to be settled by Wednesday, hence moving it to Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It seems that this is actually very bad news for Trump.

It means SCOTUS won’t consider anything filed after Tuesday. That is death to Trump’s claims.

Have the other suits from PA even been appealed to SCOTUS yet? If they have, SCOTUS has done exactly nothing with them (which is also bad news for Trump).
 
bump

Scotus will most likely take this up. Deadline date is January 20th according to the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Arizona is going into something of a quarantine over COVID this week.

It’s scary that some might want to swear in a government that could be compromised. Every American has a right.
 
Alito gave PA a very stern warning to be sure they separate ballots rec’d after the deadline.

Bottom line is this. Votes are derived from lawfully processed ballots cast lawfully by eligible individuals. If any part of the process isn’t followed as directed by the legislature then that ballot doesn’t become a recordable vote.

The judiciary is meant to rule on existing laws, not create new laws. The legislature was unable to amend the state law which dictated the due date for the ballots; creating and amending laws is the sole responsibility of legislatures, followed by a signature from the head of the executive branch. If events happened as I have heard reported, the PA state supreme court had no authority whatsoever to extend the deadline for receiving mail in ballots, and SCOTUS IMO should inform the lower court that they operated outside of their authority and violated the US Constitution in the process and toss out said ballots.
 
Joy01 said:
the PA state supreme court had no authority whatsoever to extend the deadline for receiving mail in ballots
Click to expand...
I do not know what happened to that suit, but there were not enough late ballots to change the presidential election.

This morning was the deadline for briefs on another matter, whether the legislature acted properly in passing Act 77 last year that allowed anyone to request a mail in ballot without an excuse. The PA Constitution lists the reasons to receive a mail in ballot, and in the past courts have required a constitutional amendment to change it. PA SC dismissed the lawsuit for not filing earlier, since the objection has applied for a year.

This requests throwing out all mail in ballots, not just the late arriving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top