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

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
70,851
Reaction score
12,798
Points
2,180
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
It's not too surprising that a person who is constantly photographed every time she is in public might have one unguarded moment and be photographed without her mask. It's not like she had a rally with thousands of people in an enclosed venue, and tell them that wearing a mask somehow infringed on their rights. That would be disgusting.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
22,607
Reaction score
4,594
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
.


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.
The Orange Koolaid and QAnon is strong in this one.
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
70,851
Reaction score
12,798
Points
2,180
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.
credible link?
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
36,232
Reaction score
5,576
Points
1,130
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.
No, Pa. was one of 50 States that certified it's election and via the Constitution elected Joe Biden the 46th President. The allegations were unproven and disregarded.
 

jknowgood

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
37,949
Reaction score
9,516
Points
1,330
Location
South carolina
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.
If you want to vote go to your voting place and vote. If you know you can't you request a mail in ballot. Nobody is stopping anyone from voting. I hope someday they will verify every vote. To prove you are full of shit.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
707
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
It's not too surprising that a person who is constantly photographed every time she is in public might have one unguarded moment and be photographed without her mask. It's not like she had a rally with thousands of people in an enclosed venue, and tell them that wearing a mask somehow infringed on their rights. That would be disgusting.
One "unguarded moment"?



JWK

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

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
15,398
Reaction score
4,498
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.
If you want to vote go to your voting place and vote. If you know you can't you request a mail in ballot. Nobody is stopping anyone from voting. I hope someday they will verify every vote. To prove you are full of shit.
It's your ilk that alleged voter fraud, particularly with regard to mail-in ballots, but never produced any evidence of it. How many fraudulent votes, mail-in or otherwise, were found? What we really need to do is take a hard look at attempts, many successful, to suppress the vote. Remember that slobs like abbott in Texas thought up things like restricting the number of drop boxes to one in huge counties like Harris. But then again, he's been a scumbag all his life.
 

jknowgood

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
37,949
Reaction score
9,516
Points
1,330
Location
South carolina
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.
If you want to vote go to your voting place and vote. If you know you can't you request a mail in ballot. Nobody is stopping anyone from voting. I hope someday they will verify every vote. To prove you are full of shit.
It's your ilk that alleged voter fraud, particularly with regard to mail-in ballots, but never produced any evidence of it. How many fraudulent votes, mail-in or otherwise, were found? What we really need to do is take a hard look at attempts, many successful, to suppress the vote. Remember that slobs like abbott in Texas thought up things like restricting the number of drop boxes to one in huge counties like Harris. But then again, he's been a scumbag all his life.
Like I said, you vote in person or you request a mail in ballot that you personally sign and have a witness sign it also . No reason to have just a mail in ballot which you can produce if you need more votes.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
36,740
Reaction score
5,168
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
.


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."Wond


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.
Amazing the gop created the law
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,422
Reaction score
6,704
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
.


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.
Just in time, eh?
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
19,496
Reaction score
3,603
Points
290
.


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.
The GOP can but the governor has to sign it. He is not going to do that. No-excuse voting was passed by the Republican legislature. This is a part of the Republican assault on voting rights. They know they can't win if too many people vote. Republicans are liars. That includes Republicans in the klegislature and Saylor is a Republican. Meqans nothing. You are also a liar as well.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
36,232
Reaction score
5,576
Points
1,130
So PA republicans want to repeal the laws they just fucking passed because they lost??

Got it...
They didn't pass any law....The "law" was made up out of whole cloth by the PA Supreme Court.

No excuse mail-in voting
The law creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse, which is currently required for voters using absentee ballots. Pennsylvania joins 31 other states and Washington, D.C. with mail-in voting that removes barriers to elections.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
68,880
Reaction score
32,738
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
So PA republicans want to repeal the laws they just fucking passed because they lost??

Got it...
They didn't pass any law....The "law" was made up out of whole cloth by the PA Supreme Court.

No excuse mail-in voting
The law creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse, which is currently required for voters using absentee ballots. Pennsylvania joins 31 other states and Washington, D.C. with mail-in voting that removes barriers to elections.
OK...But the PA Supreme Court re-wrote that law, by allowing ballots to be accepted after election day...I stand corrected.

But here's the real nut of the issue: the republican legislature can admit that they fucked up and are willing to reset....Which is something that numb fucks like you and those you support could never ever do.
 

BlindBoo

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
36,232
Reaction score
5,576
Points
1,130
So PA republicans want to repeal the laws they just fucking passed because they lost??

Got it...
They didn't pass any law....The "law" was made up out of whole cloth by the PA Supreme Court.

No excuse mail-in voting
The law creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse, which is currently required for voters using absentee ballots. Pennsylvania joins 31 other states and Washington, D.C. with mail-in voting that removes barriers to elections.
OK...But the PA Supreme Court re-wrote that law, by allowing ballots to be accepted after election day...I stand corrected.

But here's the real nut of the issue: the republican legislature can admit that they fucked up and are willing to reset....Which is something that numb fucks like you and those you support could never ever do.
It's not an issue. They have to pass another election law, if they can.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top