Court order, state GOP leaders effectively end Trump’s dreams of legislative reversal of Pa.’s election results

[Bass v 2.0]

After Trump team calls them âcowardsâ and âtraitors,â state GOP leaders urge Congress to reject Pa. election results

Declining to do so themselves, 64 state House Republicans asked Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation in Washington to block the awarding of its 20 electoral votes.

www.inquirer.com

Door slammed in Pennsylvania.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

After Trump team calls them âcowardsâ and âtraitors,â state GOP leaders urge Congress to reject Pa. election results

Declining to do so themselves, 64 state House Republicans asked Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation in Washington to block the awarding of its 20 electoral votes.

www.inquirer.com

Door slammed in Pennsylvania.

Hope it hit them in the ass on the way out.
Trump's lawyers, I mean.

 

[MarcATL]

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

This thread ain't going to get a lot of play with the Trumptards.
They're already running out of Butthurt cream.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"It is still possible — though, election law experts said, unlikely — that the Supreme Court could decide to consider Kelly’s appeal about the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s mail voting law outside the context of the 2020 election. But the schedule laid out by Alito appeared to foreclose any chance of the court weighing in before its outcome had been finalized."

So, the SCOTUS will not follow precedent? That's what they are saying?

 

[Lesh]

“The timing here matters,” said University of California-Irvine law professor Richard L. Hasen, in a post Thursday evening on his Election Law Blog. “I don’t see a path for Trump to use court cases to overturn the election results in even one state, much less the three states he would need at a minimum to get a different result in the Electoral College. But as the clock ticks down, those tiny chances fade into nothing.”

The SC would have to overturn election results in THREE states in order for any of this to matter.

That's a little too blatant even for the hard core Republicans on the SC

 

[Lesh]

"It is still possible — though, election law experts said, unlikely — that the Supreme Court could decide to consider Kelly’s appeal about the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s mail voting law outside the context of the 2020 election. But the schedule laid out by Alito appeared to foreclose any chance of the court weighing in before its outcome had been finalized."

So, the SCOTUS will not follow precedent? That's what they are saying?

What precedent?

The 2000 ridiculous equal protection argument that the then SC said should never be used as precedent?

 

[JGalt]

 

[Dragonlady]

"It is still possible — though, election law experts said, unlikely — that the Supreme Court could decide to consider Kelly’s appeal about the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s mail voting law outside the context of the 2020 election. But the schedule laid out by Alito appeared to foreclose any chance of the court weighing in before its outcome had been finalized."

So, the SCOTUS will not follow precedent? That's what they are saying?

No, what they are saying is that they will not toss out the results of the Pennsylvania election in 2020. There is no precedent of the Supreme Court telling the states how they can and cannot run an election.