colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
So you decided to wait until after the election to change the rules and overrule the will of the people?
PA may still go to Trump if the USSC decides the PA Supreme Court unconstitutionally "made law"
- Thread starter kyzr
- Start date
Trump has no chance of winning at this point, the news should call it for Joe.... then if Trump wants a recount here and there, let him have it, under the law of each of those States....or if there are changes before certification of the State's election that would change the winner, go for a recount.
It's bull crap that States haven't been called that Biden clearly won...
You KNOW if the numbers were reversed and Trump had the exact same lead as Biden, in all those states, it would have been called, for Trump already.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
No he's trolling.After the Democrats screamed for four years about Russian collusion affecting the election????Isn't this what the left did 4 years ago when losing?You are the one who are dreaming you think that the Conservatives should remain quiet and accept the hold up without flinching?only in your wet dreams...
real conservatives already spoke...
look at the numbers, they either already voted for biden or accepted trumps historic defeat...
it is only bunch of brain dead lunatics trying to undermine the country because they got butt hurt...
Not in the ******* slightest. There were tears, disappointment, even screaming at the sky. And then four years of endless memes from you jokers rubbing that in our faces. But no Democrat questioned the legitimacy of the election, or claimed that the election was “rigged”, or went to court to claim ballots shouldn’t be counted, or claiming widespread fraud with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Are you saying the Democrats knew the election was legitimate, and they spent four years blowing smoke up our asses????
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
I like you.Isn't this what the left did 4 years ago when losing?You are the one who are dreaming you think that the Conservatives should remain quiet and accept the hold up without flinching?only in your wet dreams...
real conservatives already spoke...
look at the numbers, they either already voted for biden or accepted trumps historic defeat...
it is only bunch of brain dead lunatics trying to undermine the country because they got butt hurt...
Not in the ******* slightest. There were tears, disappointment, even screaming at the sky. And then four years of endless memes from you jokers rubbing that in our faces. But no Democrat questioned the legitimacy of the election, or claimed that the election was “rigged”, or went to court to claim ballots shouldn’t be counted, or claiming widespread fraud with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
You make me laf.
AGREE! The Courts told citizens that it was OKAY to vote by mail, as long as their ballot was post stamp by election day.
No one can take that back now. The citizens followed, what they all were told was legal and okay.
If the citizens had been told that it was illegal, they would not have voted by mail through election day, and would have found another means to vote.
If Trump and DeJoy wouldn't have screwed the post office on their delivery times, then none of this would have happened.
The issue that is before the SCOTUS right now is whether the ballots that arrived after election day should be counted...
And the SCOTUS said they would revisit the issue after election day...
Apparently, PA was aware that the late ballots may not count (since they claim to have set them aside pending the ruling)....
Or are you trying to claim that PA has already counted the contested ballots, and mixed them in with the other ballots (which could actually put the entire pool of ballots in limbo)???
The SCOTUS didn't rule on that...
It was a 4-4 tie, and they said they would revisit the legality of counting ballots that arrived after the election once the election was over...
Which they are now doing....
Trump and dejoy, INTENTIONALLY SLOWED the post office delivery of the mailing of all ballots to and from their citizens and did not correct these slowed deliveries.If the PASC made an unconstitutional decision, changing the law they have no reason to change, the USSC can and should step in.The 2020 Presidential election may hinge on a USSC decision to enforce PA election law as prescribed by the PA legislature, and not the PA Supreme Court.
An opinion accompanying the Supreme Court’s order by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, suggested that the court may still revisit the case after the election and toss out contested mail-in ballots. Although the Supreme Court declined to rule on the matter before the election, Alito wrote that there was a "strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution."
Supreme Court allows extended mail-in ballot deadline in Pennsylvania
If the vote totals on Nov. 3 in Pennsylvania are close enough that ballots received after Election Day could impact the state’s results, legal challenges over the ballots could prolong final election results.www.thedp.com
The USSC decision may come down to the number of votes received after election day, if that number could affect the outcome.
Stay tuned, the PA election is not decided, and won't be for a while yet.
Trump should gain from the "provisional ballot" count, and would gain even more if the USSC disqualifies late votes.
But they can't do that. It's state law, not federal law.
Federal law doesn't even require an election, let alone tell a state how to do it. And that means the USG has no standing.
If the PASC made a constitutional decision, there would be no issue.
That is why the State Supreme court over ruled....to nip this cheating, in the bud.
EXACTLY. You can't have a state tell its voters "put your vote in the mail by November 3" and then two weeks later have an unrelated outside entity go "get in the time machine and put it in the mail by October 30". That disenfranchises people.
Pennsylvania, among its other Neanderthal state laws, didn't have early voting either, so the only alternative to day-of voting was the mail. Feds can't **** wit dat.
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,844
- 1,465
I’m saying that the SCOTUS overturning the Pennsylvania court’s decision would be robbing the rights of people who followed the rules.
Which is disgusting.
The SCOTUS had already stated that they would revisit the issue after the election, so if the Democrats told people to mail their ballots up through Nov 3, the Democrats fucked up, didn't they????
Then the voters should have known better than to trust the words of a Democrat....
The SCOTUS had already stated that they would revisit the issue after the election, so if the Democrats told people to mail their ballots up through Nov 3, the Democrats fucked up, didn't they????
The state supreme court told the state that, not "Democrats".
The SC is not doing that now.... They anticipate having a suit from the State courts on it in the future, but a suit has to work through state courts, before ending back in the SC.
The votes in question have been separated, but are not enough to change the results of the election.
But as far as duking out power between the legislature and state SC, that case, May still make it to the supreme court.
PRECISELY!The SCOTUS had already stated that they would revisit the issue after the election, so if the Democrats told people to mail their ballots up through Nov 3, the Democrats fucked up, didn't they????
The state supreme court told the state that, not "Democrats".
The SCOTUS had already stated that they would revisit the issue after the election, so if the Democrats told people to mail their ballots up through Nov 3, the Democrats fucked up, didn't they????
The state supreme court told the state that, not "Democrats".
The Supreme Court Lets Pennsylvania’s Elected Democrat Judges Rewrite the Law | National Review
If courts are going to change the rules, the rules need to be settled before Election Day, before voters rely on them.
www.nationalreview.com
The U.S. Supreme Court just left in place, for the second time so far, a decision by the Pennsylvania supreme court that threw out part of the election law passed by the lawmakers of Pennsylvania, and substituted instead rules written by judges. The Pennsylvania decision, issued on a party-line vote by the elected Democrats who constitute the Pennsylvania court’s majority, used the open-ended guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” to invalidate the legislature’s deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. Worse, defying basic principles of interpreting statutes, the Pennsylvania court not only rejected the deadline, but disregarded the explicit instruction by the Pennsylvania legislature — in Act 77, a law signed by the state’s Democratic governor in 2019 — that if any part of the carefully crafted bipartisan compromise was invalidated, the entire thing (including its provisions for mail-in voting) had to be invalidated. Basically, the Pennsylvania court ruled that Democrats could keep part of a legislative deal they liked, while disregarding the rest. There was clear evidence, moreover, that the Pennsylvania legislature wanted the deadline to apply even after the COVID pandemic, as a new law was passed this year during the pandemic — and again, signed by Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat — making several accommodations to aspects of the election law in light of the pandemic, but not changing the mail-in deadline. The Pennsylvania court claimed that an extension was needed because of Postal Service delays and experience from the state’s primary in the spring, although the court went out of its way to decide this on a record that ignored evidence compiled in a companion case that demonstrated that no extension was necessary.
Whatever deadlines should be, this much should be clear: If courts are going to change the rules, the rules need to be settled before Election Day, before voters rely on them, and before the judges deciding a case know who is winning or who needs what outcomes in order to win the election. That was the point Andy McCarthy made about why the Supreme Court should have taken this case now, even if it was going to rule in the Democrats’ favor, rather than wait until after the election. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh clearly agree in principle, because on Monday they ruled in favor of striking down a similar bit of mischief by a federal judge in Wisconsin. But today’s ruling was different: Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the Court’s three liberals in refusing, for the second time, to hear the Pennsylvania case now. They did not turn away the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s petition, but they refused to expedite its consideration.
two_iron
Diamond Member
This is a wet dream for the patriots in this country. Let the marxist shitstains sniff a win..... almost taste it.... and then snatch it away from them when the courts uncover massive voter fraud.
I'm sporting a boner the cat couldn't scratch.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I'm sporting a boner the cat couldn't scratch.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The Original Tree
Diamond Member
It just PA but all the other states Trump won and were flipped while America slept through Fraud.
This interview is being taken down all over the internet so watch it before it’s gone
This interview is being taken down all over the internet so watch it before it’s gone
Beef_Supreme
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2020
- 2,005
- 2,232
- 1,938
If throwing out late ballots won’t hurt Biden, what are you worried about?
Regardless of who it helps and who it hurts, things should be done the right way. If throwing out illegal/late ballots hurts trump, I’m still for it.
You ***** about a “corrupt conservative court”, and just sound like a fool. It’s libs who love to legislate from the bench. See Obamacare as a glaring example.
Have some integrity.
the US Supreme court denied taking up the case before the elect....The SCOTUS had already stated that they would revisit the issue after the election, so if the Democrats told people to mail their ballots up through Nov 3, the Democrats fucked up, didn't they????
The state supreme court told the state that, not "Democrats".The Supreme Court Lets Pennsylvania’s Elected Democrat Judges Rewrite the Law | National Review
If courts are going to change the rules, the rules need to be settled before Election Day, before voters rely on them.
The U.S. Supreme Court just left in place, for the second time so far, a decision by the Pennsylvania supreme court that threw out part of the election law passed by the lawmakers of Pennsylvania, and substituted instead rules written by judges. The Pennsylvania decision, issued on a party-line vote by the elected Democrats who constitute the Pennsylvania court’s majority, used the open-ended guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” to invalidate the legislature’s deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. Worse, defying basic principles of interpreting statutes, the Pennsylvania court not only rejected the deadline, but disregarded the explicit instruction by the Pennsylvania legislature — in Act 77, a law signed by the state’s Democratic governor in 2019 — that if any part of the carefully crafted bipartisan compromise was invalidated, the entire thing (including its provisions for mail-in voting) had to be invalidated. Basically, the Pennsylvania court ruled that Democrats could keep part of a legislative deal they liked, while disregarding the rest. There was clear evidence, moreover, that the Pennsylvania legislature wanted the deadline to apply even after the COVID pandemic, as a new law was passed this year during the pandemic — and again, signed by Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat — making several accommodations to aspects of the election law in light of the pandemic, but not changing the mail-in deadline. The Pennsylvania court claimed that an extension was needed because of Postal Service delays and experience from the state’s primary in the spring, although the court went out of its way to decide this on a record that ignored evidence compiled in a companion case that demonstrated that no extension was necessary.
Whatever deadlines should be, this much should be clear: If courts are going to change the rules, the rules need to be settled before Election Day, before voters rely on them, and before the judges deciding a case know who is winning or who needs what outcomes in order to win the election. That was the point Andy McCarthy made about why the Supreme Court should have taken this case now, even if it was going to rule in the Democrats’ favor, rather than wait until after the election. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh clearly agree in principle, because on Monday they ruled in favor of striking down a similar bit of mischief by a federal judge in Wisconsin. But today’s ruling was different: Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the Court’s three liberals in refusing, for the second time, to hear the Pennsylvania case now. They did not turn away the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s petition, but they refused to expedite its consideration.
Which meant the State Supreme court decision, stood as law.
Citizens, both republican and democratic, voted....based off of that decision of letting the State Supreme court decision stand.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Talking About Trump's Incompetence and Support of Scams, this tops the Headlines!- Started by Luckyone
- Replies: 8
-
Cole Thomas Allen facing life in prison for a crime every leftist on this board claims was faked- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 8
Latest Discussions
-
-
The government is not protecting your children like they should in the US- Latest: Admiral Rockwell Tory
-
