PA law makers move to end illegal no-excuse mail in voting which poisoned 2020 election

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,397
Reaction score
714
Points
130
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


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

Whodatsaywhodat.

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
1,490
Reaction score
1,350
Points
1,908
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
 

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
12,764
Reaction score
4,090
Points
360
Location
USA
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
In the near future.....saying "Trump won by a landslide" will be the same as saying "My mommy let's me eat my own boogers" -- because you will get the same reaction from people to both....
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
15,448
Reaction score
4,546
Points
290
There never was any proof of fraud. The republicans will do anything they can to stop people from voting, while they yap on about how "patriotic" they are. Actual patriots support voting and make an effort to make sure that everyone votes. The republican party used to be respectable. Now it's just sleazy.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,726
Reaction score
22,164
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat [sic] Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of [sic].
This is exactly the same clown car that insisted mail-in votes couldn't be touched until Election Day and had to sit gathering dust, ENSURING a glacial vote-count, which they then turned around and pointed to as if they couldn't understand what they themselves did. Over strenuous objections. Suppress the vote by any means possible.

Oh by the way OP, go get an edumacation. There is no such thing as a 'Democrat [sic] Party" Dumbass. This is one of several linguistic faux pases of which you are guilty of, he said redundantly.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,726
Reaction score
22,164
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
'Tis a sad day in Duh Bubble when your whole argument consists of "Everybody Knows". :itsok:
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
70,966
Reaction score
12,880
Points
2,180
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
Well, at least everyone knows that hard core nut bags are still claiming that. It doesn't make the claim true.
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
1,490
Reaction score
1,350
Points
1,908
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
'Tis a sad day in Duh Bubble when your whole argument consists of "Everybody Knows". :itsok:
I'm sorry , everyone knows except brain dead democrats.
 

Whodatsaywhodat.

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
1,490
Reaction score
1,350
Points
1,908
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
In the near future.....saying "Trump won by a landslide" will be the same as saying "My mommy let's me eat my own boogers" -- because you will get the same reaction from people to both....
Or you may be rounded up to reeducation camps.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
15,448
Reaction score
4,546
Points
290
There is no such thing as a 'Democrat [sic] Party" Dumbass. This is one of several linguistic faux pases of which you are guilty of, he said redundantly.
These people are so immature that they think this stuff is cute somehow. trump is one of them. Adults don't do this kind of thing.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,726
Reaction score
22,164
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
'Tis a sad day in Duh Bubble when your whole argument consists of "Everybody Knows". :itsok:
I'm sorry , everyone knows except brain dead democrats.
Linkity?
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,397
Reaction score
714
Points
130
So despite absolutely NO proof of anything illegal at all the GOP is still going to push the "cheating" angle?

In case you missed it, over million illegal ballots were counted in PA’s federal electoral process.

Try paying attention to what is happening in your country.

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,726
Reaction score
22,164
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
So despite absolutely NO proof of anything illegal at all the GOP is still going to push the "cheating" angle?

In case you missed it, over million illegal ballots were counted in PA’s federal electoral process.

Try paying attention to what is happening in your country.

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
In case YOU missed it, you have utterly FAILED to provide any evidence thereto.

Not that any is expected.

Isn't Ipse Dixit fun.
 

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
12,764
Reaction score
4,090
Points
360
Location
USA
.


See: Pennsylvania GOP Moves to Repeal No-Excuse Mail-In Ballot Provisions

January 22, 2021


Sens. Patrick Stefano and Doug Mastriano said in a Jan. 21 memorandum, “By removing the provisions of law that allow for no-excuse mail-in ballots, we can regain some trust in our elections’ integrity.”


The senators also said that “… Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, had taken advantage of mail-in voting and “usurped legislative power to set the conditions for an election result in their political interest.”
.

In regard to the legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail in voting, and their obvious unconstitutional nature, let us recall what two of PA’s Supreme Court Justices have stated. See Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT 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."


JWK


Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Democrats cheat at everything . Trump won by a landslide, everyone knows this.
In the near future.....saying "Trump won by a landslide" will be the same as saying "My mommy let's me eat my own boogers" -- because you will get the same reaction from people to both....
Or you may be rounded up to reeducation camps.
Cool story bro
Screenshot_20201119-200949_Twitter.jpg
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,397
Reaction score
714
Points
130
Oh by the way OP, go get an edumacation. There is no such thing as a 'Democrat [sic] Party" Dumbass. This is one of several linguistic faux pases of which you are guilty of . . .
Hmmmm.


And here is the Democrat revolutionary House leader . . . do as I say and not as I do:



.

Well, seems you are once again absolutely delusional!

JWK

You bet Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff have won. Every parasitic rat found their way to the voting booth to vote to get their piece of “free government cheese”, just as they did in Venezuela and Cuba, and now suffer the poisonous consequences of their actions
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
122,726
Reaction score
22,164
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Oh by the way OP, go get an edumacation. There is no such thing as a 'Democrat [sic] Party" Dumbass. This is one of several linguistic faux pases of which you are guilty of . . .
Hmmmm.


And here is the Democrat revolutionary House leader . . . do as I say and not as I do:



.

Well, seems you are once again absolutely delusional!

JWK

You bet Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff have won. Every parasitic rat found their way to the voting booth to vote to get their piece of “free government cheese”, just as they did in Venezuela and Cuba, and now suffer the poisonous consequences of their actions
When your argument is gong down in flames ------------ quick, change the subject altogether.

Here's a yahoo who not only wants to take us to a freaking hairdresser, but also to the Georgia Senate elections and "mice". Guess your thread didn't work out.

You lose.

And for what it's worth --- my hair stylist and I don't mask when I'm in there either.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top