Former Judge Burke: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit

OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,385
Reaction score
711
Points
130
The Supreme Court did not neglect it's duty. You are not automatically entitled to a Supreme Court hearing. You must provide evidence of what you are alleging.
:ahole-1:

The court refused to examine evidence, establish facts and listen to witnesses in a case it has original and exclusive jurisdiction over.

In original jurisdiction cases, such as the Texas lawsuit is, the Supreme Court usually appoints a “special master” who then hears the evidence, establishes facts, and then makes its recommendation to the Court. To the best of my knowledge a special “Master’ was never appointed. The Court refused to allow a hearing of the Bill of Complaint, review evidence, listen to sworn witnesses, and it ducked the case by falsely asserting Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections".

JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,385
Reaction score
711
Points
130
The trouble is that there is no evidence of any fraud
So, now you are going to lie. There were over a million illegal, no-excuse, mail in ballots counted in PA, for starters.

JWK

The Biden/Harris socialist healthcare plan will tax America’s productive citizens and our retired Senior citizens to provide healthcare to the 1.5 million DACA and 3.6 million Dreamers in our country ___ LINK
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,385
Reaction score
711
Points
130
The federal courts found no evidence that any fraud occurred in any state. End of your argument.
The Supreme Court never gave a hearing to the Texas Bill of Complaint, reviewed evidence, nor listened to sworn witnesses who experienced fraud and corruption taking place.

The charges of fraud and corruption in the election will remain until they are refuted.

Did you know the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania all but confirmed the illegality of no-excuse mail in voting which took place in Pennsylvania?


Read the Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT [LINK] which indicates The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77. is un-constitutional.


CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR

Filed: November 28, 2020



"I agree with the majority that injunctive relief restraining certification of the votes of Pennsylvanians cast in the 2020 general election should not have been granted and is unavailable in the present circumstances. As the majority relates, there has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime created by Act 77 to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed by Appellees.1 Accordingly, I join the per curiam Order to the extent that it vacates the preliminary injunction implemented by the Commonwealth Court.2

That said, there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme." 3

One of Appellants’ main responses is that the citizenry, and perhaps future generations, are forever bound by the Legislature’s decision to insert, into Act 77 itself, a 180-day time restriction curtailing challenges to the substantive import of the enactment. See Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, §13(3). However, I find this assessment to be substantially problematic.4 Further, as Appellees observe, ongoing amendments to an unconstitutional enactment so insulated from judicial review may have a compounding effect by exacerbating the disparity between what the Constitution requires and the law as it is being enforced. Thus, Appellees raise a colorable challenge to the viability of this sort of limitation, which can result in effectively amending the Constitution via means other those which the charter itself sanctions. See PA. CONST., art. XI (Amendments).

To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course, upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further, I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand. In this regard, relative to the declaratory component of the request for relief, I also would not invoke the doctrine of laches, since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized. Moreover, “laches and prejudice can never be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988).

Consistent with my position throughout this election cycle, I believe that, to the extent possible, we should apply more ordinary and orderly methods of judicial consideration, since far too much nuance is lost by treating every election matter as exigent and worthy of this Court’s immediate resolution. In this respect, I would honor the Commonwealth Court’s traditional role as the court of original and original appellate jurisdiction for most election matters. Finally, I am decidedly against yet another award of extraordinary jurisdiction at the Secretary’s behest.

Justice Mundy joins this Concurring and Dissenting Statement."


View attachment 446040
JWK


Our government, once of the people, by the people and for the people, has been transformed into a government of politicians, by politicians and for politicians . . . witness the latest influence peddling fortune being made by the Biden criminal enterprise family.
No evidence was ever provided. You do not make a charge and then automatically get a hearing without providing any proof of the charges. The charges of corruption and fraud will remain because you people cannot accept reality. It is easier to believe it is a fraudulent election than to accept the truth that Trump lost. Everyone else knows Trump lost.

The justice you quote is a Republican.
And the PA Supreme Court Justices I mentioned, also agreed with that lower court judge.

JWK

Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,385
Reaction score
711
Points
130
ou are the fascists. Fascists try to steal a election. You tried to steal the election. They addressed everything that was in Trump's briefs.
And the Supreme Court refused to address the Texas Bill of Complaint, establish the facts, review evidence, and listen to sworn witnesses. It did exactly what is done in Fascist Dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, etc..


JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
 

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
108,962
Reaction score
14,667
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
The trouble is that there is no evidence of any fraud
So, now you are going to lie. There were over a million illegal, no-excuse, mail in ballots counted in PA, for starters.

JWK

The Biden/Harris socialist healthcare plan will tax America’s productive citizens and our retired Senior citizens to provide healthcare to the 1.5 million DACA and 3.6 million Dreamers in our country ___ LINK
Sorry charlie.

"Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
- Judge Stephanos Bibas

"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, That has not happened. "
-Judge Matthew Brann
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
9,351
Reaction score
1,682
Points
160
Location
North Carolina
WTF does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to do with Texas?

They are Pennsylvania’s electors. Texas can worry about it’s own electors.

Yeah, I knew you would play dumb.

The Texas lawsuit is over the PA Supreme Court ruling. Duh.
So what does the State of Texas have to do with a ruling in PA by the PA Supreme Court?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
219,110
Reaction score
45,335
Points
2,190
WTF does the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have to do with Texas?

They are Pennsylvania’s electors. Texas can worry about it’s own electors.

Yeah, I knew you would play dumb.

The Texas lawsuit is over the PA Supreme Court ruling. Duh.
So what does the State of Texas have to do with a ruling in PA by the PA Supreme Court?
Texans believe in States Rights
Their right to tell other states what to do
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top