USSC head in the ground

[eagle7-31]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

 

[Oddball]

"Not timely"....As though you're supposed to charge the bank robbers before they commit the robbery.

 

[Moonglow]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

 

[theHawk]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

Yea, as “conservative” as Bitch McConnell and John Mc-shit-Stain.

 

[bendog]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

 

[eagle7-31]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

State control yes benny....but not at the expense of an accurate count or Dominion software cooking the books.

 

[Oddball]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

Never heard of equal protection?

Never heard of the passage in the Constitution that says state legislatures make election law?

Didn't think so.

 

[d0gbreath]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

I'm still freaked out that they put country before what's-his-name.

 

[colfax_m]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

Take your cases to court before the election. You can't change the rules after people voted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
McPherson v. Blacker
Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker

supreme.justia.com

The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.




The Democrat Party is very lucky to have mindless integrity-lacking drones, like you, who will simply agree with anything they do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
McPherson v. Blacker
Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker

supreme.justia.com

The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.




The Democrat Party is very lucky to have mindless integrity-lacking drones, like you, who will simply agree with anything they do.

How dare you bring precedent into this discussion. Precedent has no place in court rulings.



To hell with stare decisis.

 

[colfax_m]

"Not timely"....As though you're supposed to charge the bank robbers before they commit the robbery.

This wasn't a lawsuit about fraud, it was about the rule changes made before the election.

You can't change the rules after the election, which is what these lawsuits were trying to do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he 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, 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 US 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.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
McPherson v. Blacker
Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker

supreme.justia.com

The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.




The Democrat Party is very lucky to have mindless integrity-lacking drones, like you, who will simply agree with anything they do.

How dare you bring precedent into this discussion. Precedent has no place in court rulings.



To hell with stare decisis.

Actually, I'm no fan of either precedent nor stare decisis.

The mandate is directly from the Constitution .


“McPherson v Blacker

Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several States have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed. Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature. If the terms of the clause left the question of power in doubt, contemporaneous and continuous subsequent practical construction has determined the question as above stated. The second clause of Article II of the Constitution was not amended by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they do not limit the power of appointment to the particular manner pursued at the time of the adoption of these amendments, or secure to every male inhabitant of a State, being a citizen of the United States, the right from the time of his majority to vote for presidential electors. A state law fixing a date for the meeting of electors, differing from that prescribed by the act of Congress, is not thereby wholly invalidated; but the date may be rejected and the law stand. “
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

[colfax_m]

Actually, I'm no fan of either precedent nor stare decisis.

The mandate is directly from the Constitution .

The Pennsylvania determined the method of appointing electors. It's done by popular state vote.

Nothing that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did or didn't do changed that fact.

The precedent cited is irrelevant.

 

[bendog]

Actually, I'm no fan of either precedent nor stare decisis.

The mandate is directly from the Constitution .

The Pennsylvania determined the method of appointing electors. It's done by popular state vote.

Nothing that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did or didn't do changed that fact.

The precedent cited is irrelevant.

Yes but you're responding to PC. The PA SC made it's decision based on it's interpreation of equal protection. And it has every power to decide that for PA, so long as PA affords it's citizens at a MINIMUM the EP guaranteed under the US Const.

Whether they decided right or wrong, is irrelevant. I'd say GA violated EP on voting rights, and FL too on whether the voters restored former felons the franchise, but the US SC generally defers to states to decide state law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, I'm no fan of either precedent nor stare decisis.

The mandate is directly from the Constitution .

The Pennsylvania determined the method of appointing electors. It's done by popular state vote.

Nothing that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did or didn't do changed that fact.

The precedent cited is irrelevant.

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

 

[BlindBoo]

the Constitution that says state legislatures make election law

The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.”

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[colfax_m]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

IT IS WHEN THE people that changed it DONT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO CHANGE THEM,,,

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.