PA House Introduces a Resolution: The Election Process Shall Be Declared Improper.

[Ray From Cleveland]

And the "LAW" didn't match reality when they added Mail-in voting. The "Law" also said that no ballots could not be counted until AFTER the polls closed. The "Law" also said that the in person ballots had to be counted first and it laid out the sequence for the other types of ballots to be counted. The "Law" was never intended for mail-in voting to be successful. All the Judge did was level out the playing field. Sounds to me that the real culprits here are the Republican partyoftherumpers who tried to throw an election. If a State wants Legislators like that representing them then no court in the nation will rule against that.

The law is all that counts. A judge only rules if a law was followed properly or in violation of the US Constitution. A judge is not there to equal out anything. That's not in their authority. This judge apparently was trying to fix the election. Everybody who used mail in voting had weeks to send in their ballots. They also had the option to vote in person if they were unsure if their late ballot would get there in time. It's not up to a judge to rewrite laws for stupid people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that.

 

[danielpalos]

It's very relevant. And the Legislatures DID make a few changes to harm Mail-in Voting just before the election. When they added Mail-in Voting, they needed to go to the same rules as the states that have done it successfully for at least a decade, some for over 2 decades. I still hold that the whole process was setup to fail. But it didn't fail due to some very hard working and diligent Officials and Volunteers who did the best they could do with the plate served to them. The Courts aren't making up new laws, they are just evening up the playing field and not allowing you Party of the Rumpers to keep moving the goal posts.

The legislature did not change the law when the ballots had to be turned in. That was done by a judge. The law is all ballots have to be there by 8:00 pm on election day; no later.

The franchise is more important and the circumstances were, special.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the "LAW" didn't match reality when they added Mail-in voting. The "Law" also said that no ballots could not be counted until AFTER the polls closed. The "Law" also said that the in person ballots had to be counted first and it laid out the sequence for the other types of ballots to be counted. The "Law" was never intended for mail-in voting to be successful. All the Judge did was level out the playing field. Sounds to me that the real culprits here are the Republican partyoftherumpers who tried to throw an election. If a State wants Legislators like that representing them then no court in the nation will rule against that.

The law is all that counts. A judge only rules if a law was followed properly or in violation of the US Constitution. A judge is not there to equal out anything. That's not in their authority. This judge apparently was trying to fix the election. Everybody who used mail in voting had weeks to send in their ballots. They also had the option to vote in person if they were unsure if their late ballot would get there in time. It's not up to a judge to rewrite laws for stupid people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that.

When the law is specifically written to deny voters their constitutional right to have their vote counted then the Courts have the obligation to give a temporary ruling to give the Legislation the time to correct the condition. If Legislators all did their jobs, there would be no need for the Federal Courts.

 

[eddiew37]

In spite of Trump engineering the destruction of the mail delivery system, in spite of governors removing access to ballot boxes, in spite of the malfunction of voting machines in minority areas, America wanted so badly to rid themselves of the Trump pox, they stood in horrific lines for hours in order to make sure he lost.

 

[Christ_on_a_croissant]

A resolution?! Oh shit!

Unfortunately for the cultist op and the stain on democracy that was once the Republican Party, ‘owning the libs’ with a non-binding resolution won’t do jack shit to overturn the most secure election in American history.

Norman go fuck yourself

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the law is specifically written to deny voters their constitutional right to have their vote counted then the Courts have the obligation to give a temporary ruling to give the Legislation the time to correct the condition. If Legislators all did their jobs, there would be no need for the Federal Courts.

Nobody was denied their right to vote. Anybody could vote that was registered to vote in that state. If you used mail in, mail it in early enough so no question could be asked of when it got there. If you were unsure of when it would get there, you vote in person instead. That's what I did, and I have several medical conditions that could be deadly to me if I catch Covid. I still voted in person because I wanted to make sure my vote counted.

A judge cannot change laws on the bench. Reread the Al Gore case. The Florida law was all ballots had to be certified in seven days. If you want a recount, fine, recount and have the ballots turned in and certified in seven days. The Florida federal judge said he didn't give a shit about what the law was. This is his buddy Al Gore, and because it's Al Gore, he gets to take all the time he needs to find enough votes to win.

When it got to the Supreme Court, they returned the decision to the Florida court asking WTF does he think he's doing? It's unconstitutional to change laws on the bench.

This is the same case and will have the same outcome when it gets to the SC.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When the law is specifically written to deny voters their constitutional right to have their vote counted then the Courts have the obligation to give a temporary ruling to give the Legislation the time to correct the condition. If Legislators all did their jobs, there would be no need for the Federal Courts.

Nobody was denied their right to vote. Anybody could vote that was registered to vote in that state. If you used mail in, mail it in early enough so no question could be asked of when it got there. If you were unsure of when it would get there, you vote in person instead. That's what I did, and I have several medical conditions that could be deadly to me if I catch Covid. I still voted in person because I wanted to make sure my vote counted.

A judge cannot change laws on the bench. Reread the Al Gore case. The Florida law was all ballots had to be certified in seven days. If you want a recount, fine, recount and have the ballots turned in and certified in seven days. The Florida federal judge said he didn't give a shit about what the law was. This is his buddy Al Gore, and because it's Al Gore, he gets to take all the time he needs to find enough votes to win.

When it got to the Supreme Court, they returned the decision to the Florida court asking WTF does he think he's doing? It's unconstitutional to change laws on the bench.

This is the same case and will have the same outcome when it gets to the SC.

In the Gore/Bush thing. All the Scotus did was put a cutoff date on the recount. It just so happens at the cuffoff time, Bush Jr was leading and had to be announced the winner by the state. Believe it or not, the Governor of Florida could have done that was well but what a smell that would have made.

 

[danielpalos]

The franchise has to mean something. The law must be reasonable in dealing with mitigating circumstances in any situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the Gore/Bush thing. All the Scotus did was put a cutoff date on the recount. It just so happens at the cuffoff time, Bush Jr was leading and had to be announced the winner by the state. Believe it or not, the Governor of Florida could have done that was well but what a smell that would have made.

Jeb recused himself from that election. And no, he could not have overruled a judges decision. That has to be done by a higher or appeals court.

The SC did not set any cutoff date, they simply said you can't change laws on the bench. The cutoff date was passed by the legislature years before. The SC said they must follow the laws that were written.

 

[busybee01]

You mean TRUMP SUPPORTER Alan Dershowitz.

He isn't supporting anybody and said that repeatedly while defending Trump during the phony impeachment.

Of course he says that. He is a biased observer.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In the Gore/Bush thing. All the Scotus did was put a cutoff date on the recount. It just so happens at the cuffoff time, Bush Jr was leading and had to be announced the winner by the state. Believe it or not, the Governor of Florida could have done that was well but what a smell that would have made.

Jeb recused himself from that election. And no, he could not have overruled a judges decision. That has to be done by a higher or appeals court.

The SC did not set any cutoff date, they simply said you can't change laws on the bench. The cutoff date was passed by the legislature years before. The SC said they must follow the laws that were written.

If Jeb and his bunch had made the ruling it never would have gone to the courts with any hopes of success. But the smell would have been staggering and he knew it so he excused himself as he should have.

Thank you for making my point. The Cutoff they decided was already on the books. That same cuttoff every other Governor other than Jeb would have pushed. In reality, they did decide the cutoff and it was in the Florida State Laws all along. You can squirm and read into it all you wish but that's what happened.

As for 2020, using Penn as an example, the State Laws were never intended to be used for Mail-in Voting. In fact, the state laws were never intended for good voting in the first place. The Author of those laws must have been Sheckie Greene. And after seeing that stupid thing from yesterday, the Voters need to protect their voting rights and send that whole lot of them packing in 2022 otherwise, the courts will be involved once again.

 

[busybee01]

The court said that Bush v Gore was not a precedent. There were federal deadlines involved.

No, there were state deadlines involved. We don't have any federal deadlines for elections.

Yes we do. There is a safe harbor provision that ends any further challenges if the state certifies the results 6 days before electors meet. That is why any further recounting was halted by the Supreme Court in Florida.

 

[busybee01]

wrong again,,,

they are trying to defend against a rigged election,,,

With zero evidence presented in court.

Newsflash!

Newsmax/OAN/Epoch Times/Natural News aren't a branch of the American government, no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want them to be!

....Unconstitutionally sending out millions of mail in ballots is the epitome of a fraudulent election?

It was very clearly unconstitutional

THe court's remedy won't be to remove those votes

But a legislature can

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The legislature can stage a coup and they should be huntexd down and rece9ivde the same treatment that tyrants receive.

 

[Juicin]

wrong again,,,

they are trying to defend against a rigged election,,,

With zero evidence presented in court.

Newsflash!

Newsmax/OAN/Epoch Times/Natural News aren't a branch of the American government, no matter how much you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want them to be!

....Unconstitutionally sending out millions of mail in ballots is the epitome of a fraudulent election?

It was very clearly unconstitutional

THe court's remedy won't be to remove those votes

But a legislature can

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The legislature can stage a coup and they should be huntexd down and rece9ivde the same treatment that tyrants receive.

PA constitution says how you should send out mail in ballots.....And under what conditions

Yes it was unconstitutional under PA law

It's not federally illegal

 

[Faun]

It's very relevant. And the Legislatures DID make a few changes to harm Mail-in Voting just before the election. When they added Mail-in Voting, they needed to go to the same rules as the states that have done it successfully for at least a decade, some for over 2 decades. I still hold that the whole process was setup to fail. But it didn't fail due to some very hard working and diligent Officials and Volunteers who did the best they could do with the plate served to them. The Courts aren't making up new laws, they are just evening up the playing field and not allowing you Party of the Rumpers to keep moving the goal posts.

The legislature did not change the law when the ballots had to be turned in. That was done by a judge. The law is all ballots have to be there by 8:00 pm on election day; no later.

Again... ballots that arrived after 8pm on election day were not counted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes we do. There is a safe harbor provision that ends any further challenges if the state certifies the results 6 days before electors meet. That is why any further recounting was halted by the Supreme Court in Florida.

That had nothing to do with it. The judge changed Florida law on the bench. That was the problem, just like this judge changed the PA law on the bench.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Jeb and his bunch had made the ruling it never would have gone to the courts with any hopes of success. But the smell would have been staggering and he knew it so he excused himself as he should have.

Thank you for making my point. The Cutoff they decided was already on the books. That same cuttoff every other Governor other than Jeb would have pushed. In reality, they did decide the cutoff and it was in the Florida State Laws all along. You can squirm and read into it all you wish but that's what happened.

As for 2020, using Penn as an example, the State Laws were never intended to be used for Mail-in Voting. In fact, the state laws were never intended for good voting in the first place. The Author of those laws must have been Sheckie Greene. And after seeing that stupid thing from yesterday, the Voters need to protect their voting rights and send that whole lot of them packing in 2022 otherwise, the courts will be involved once again.

Wrong. The ruling was in the law. Gore knew he couldn't get the votes so he took it to his buddy on the state federal court. The judge then extended the deadline beyond what was legally allowable. A Governor cannot overrule a decision of the court. That's called contempt and punishable by fines and possibly jail time.

In PA it doesn't matter if it was intended for mail in or not. They didn't have to make any alterations in the law for mail in. The law states all ballots must be cast by 8:00pm EST on election day. A judge cannot legally change that. That would have had to be changed by the legislature, and that's why the SC will rule against it.

 

[eddiew37]

I am delighted that Biden won....but if he stole the election . I am really delighted that he is that SMART!!!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

they stood in horrific lines for hours in order to make sure he lost

"Horrific waiting lines".....ease up on the absurd hyperbole, Snowboy.

People will think you just a liar trying in vain to pump up enthusiasm for theft of the
Presidency. Which, of course, you are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am delighted that Biden won....but if he stole the election . I am really delighted that he is that SMART!!!

Trump was smarter. He colluded with Russia, changed the election, and even a year long 25 million dollar investigation couldn't find a clue of it.