PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be reversed by SCOTUS
Yes... bullshit law saying when the bullshit law can be challenged has not much weight in it.
No different than the statues of limitations the federal government imposes on itself. Or the time limits of the Speedy Trials Act 1974 - 18 USC 3161
Bullshit, that's not what they even argued, as they directly state:

"While the Commonwealth also relies upon Section 13(3) of Act 77, providing for a 180- day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced, given our reliance upon the doctrine of laches, we do not speak to this basis for dismissal. "

Supreme court it is.
The Supreme Court is who just dismissed the case with prejudice.
Trolololoo...

US Supreme Court...
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
6,434
Points
265
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be reversed by SCOTUS
Yes... bullshit law saying when the bullshit law can be challenged has not much weight in it.
No different than the statues of limitations the federal government imposes on itself. Or the time limits of the Speedy Trials Act 1974 - 18 USC 3161
Bullshit, that's not what they even argued, as they directly state:

"While the Commonwealth also relies upon Section 13(3) of Act 77, providing for a 180- day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced, given our reliance upon the doctrine of laches, we do not speak to this basis for dismissal. "

Supreme court it is.
The Supreme Court is who just dismissed the case with prejudice.
Trolololoo...

US Supreme Court...
There’s no federal question so the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,219
Reaction score
23,053
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
A Bullshit political ruling because Kathy Bockvar's jurisdiction can be challenge at ANY TIME and election statutes are not amended by Laches. Specially when the statute itself - Section 13(3) of Act 77, provides for a 180-day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be reversed by SCOTUS
Yeah, because how many times have you been right on these cases, Lionel?

Is it zero?

Yes, it's zero times you've been right so far.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,736
Reaction score
3,427
Points
930

Laches and Post-2020 Election Challenges: Why Many of the Republican Gambits Challenging Election Laws Will Come Too Late

In this post, I want to talk about a key issue about timing that could mean many such gambits come too late under the doctrine of “laches.” Laches is a remedial defense that says that when there is unreasonable delay and it prejudices the other party, then the claim comes too late.


The bottom line is that if you think there is a problem with how an election is being run, you need to go to court at that point to sue about it; you can’t wait to see how the election turns out and then do it.


October 29, 2020 11:39 am by Rick Hasen
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
44,972
Reaction score
5,668
Points
1,870
PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2020, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726,1 we GRANT the application for extraordinary jurisdiction filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (“Commonwealth”), VACATE the Commonwealth Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election, and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the petition for review filed by the Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, and Wanda Logan (“Petitioners”). All other outstanding motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

A Bullshit political ruling because Kathy Bockvar's jurisdiction can be challenge at ANY TIME and election statutes are not amended by Laches. Specially when the statute itself - Section 13(3) of Act 77, provides for a 180-day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be reversed by SCOTUS
Yes... bullshit law saying when the bullshit law can be challenged has not much weight in it.
You can stop whining, now. This thread is officially deceased. Time for you to flit on to the next desperate nugget of cultish goofiness.
The Supreme Court is who just dismissed the case with prejudice.
. He says, "The supreme court will decide." When they do, he rejects their decision. He has lied so much he doesnt even remember how not to lie.
 

pyetro

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
3,088
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,940
A Pennsylvania state court Judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week, and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight.

You can read the Opinion here.

The case has been somewhat under the radar, because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.

The issue in this case is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections.


Here is the Judge’s description of the claim:
In the Petition, Petitioners allege that the Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (Act 77), which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions in the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code),1 is unconstitutional and void ab initio because it purportedly contravenes the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Petitioners allege that Article VII, section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides two exclusive mechanisms by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election: (1) by submitting his or her vote in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and (2) by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies the conditions precedent to meet the requirements of one of the four, limited exclusive circumstances under which absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania constitution. (Petition, ¶16.) Petitioners allege that mail-in voting in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority. Id., ¶17. Petitioners argue that in order to amend the Constitution, mandatory procedural requirements must be strictly followed. Specifically, pursuant to Article XI, Section 1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of the members of both the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions, then the proposed amendment must be published for three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in each county, and finally it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question in the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment. According to Petitioners, the legislature did not follow the necessary procedures for amending the Constitution before enacting Act 77 which created a new category of mail-in voting; therefore, the mail-in ballot scheme under Act 77 is unconstitutional on its face and must be struck down. Id., ¶¶27, 35-37. As relief, Petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaration and/or injunction that prohibits Respondents from certifying the November 2020 General Election results, which include mail-in ballots that are permitted on a statewide basis and are allegedlyimproper because Act 77 is unconstitutional.
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had “certified” the results, because there were more steps to be taken [emphasis added]:



Folks, mail in balloting already IS illegal in PA thank God.
This thread ended in embarrassment for the author and right-wing fans, as the Pa Supreme Court wiped its butt with the rightwing-nut judge's decision:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court tosses GOP congressman’s suit seeking to throw out all ballots cast by mail (inquirer.com)
 

pyetro

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
3,088
Reaction score
3,063
Points
1,940
The OP is wrong. The court did NOT find that mail-in ballots in PA are unconstitutional.

The court halted the certification process so those arguing that it is unconstitutional can have their say in court.

The judge also said that she didn’t know what the relief was, but that an election shouldn’t be tossed and handed to the legislature.
What can you expect? Moderators in this right-wing message board don't send inaccurate threads like these to the "Rubber Room" (when the author is a right-wing nut). The goal is to spread fake news in favor of Trump.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
PA Judge’s Stay Order On Certification Argues Mail-In Ballots Challenge “A Viable Claim”; Laches Doctrine May be In Play

The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to halt its election certification processes on Wednesday filed an opinion backing up the action yesterday. Judge Patricia McCullough argued that the plaintiffs’ argument that mass mail-in voting violates the state constitution is “viable,” and that a short delay won’t hurt while courts sort out the challenge.

Laches Doctrine comes into play in that this system has been used and not objected to, previously. That doesn't make it right, but, it does make it less likely that the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be thrown out. Your case is weakened if you keep quiet until you get an election result you don't like before objecting.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,521
Reaction score
14,906
Points
2,180
The state Supreme Court dismissed the case on Saturday, based on the “Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner.”
1606613279420.png
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
72,521
Reaction score
14,906
Points
2,180
The OP is wrong. The court did NOT find that mail-in ballots in PA are unconstitutional.

The court halted the certification process so those arguing that it is unconstitutional can have their say in court.

The judge also said that she didn’t know what the relief was, but that an election shouldn’t be tossed and handed to the legislature.
What can you expect? Moderators in this right-wing message board don't send inaccurate threads like these to the "Rubber Room" (when the author is a right-wing nut). The goal is to spread fake news in favor of Trump.
The you know whos shitcanned one of his threads yesterday. Stunned me too.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,736
Reaction score
3,427
Points
930
Bullshit, that's not what they even argued, as they directly state:

"While the Commonwealth also relies upon Section 13(3) of Act 77, providing for a 180- day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced, given our reliance upon the doctrine of laches, we do not speak to this basis for dismissal. "

Supreme court it is.
Read it carefully. They said they relied on the doctrine of laches, and not the ;limits within the code itself.

In short, They used an independent legal principle, so nothing contained in the election law was subject to interpretation by another court.

The USSC would be limited to ruling on the doctrine of laches.
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,726
Reaction score
2,438
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
PA Judge’s Stay Order On Certification Argues Mail-In Ballots Challenge “A Viable Claim”; Laches Doctrine May be In Play

The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to halt its election certification processes on Wednesday filed an opinion backing up the action yesterday. Judge Patricia McCullough argued that the plaintiffs’ argument that mass mail-in voting violates the state constitution is “viable,” and that a short delay won’t hurt while courts sort out the challenge.

Laches Doctrine comes into play in that this system has been used and not objected to, previously. That doesn't make it right, but, it does make it less likely that the unconstitutional mail in ballots will be thrown out. Your case is weakened if you keep quiet until you get an election result you don't like before objecting.

Pure Bullshit

The Michigan Supreme Court had previously ruled that

"In the early case of Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886), the United States Supreme Court declared that " unconstitutional statute * * * confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed". This Court recognized the same principle in Briggs v Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co, 379 Mich 160, 165; 150 NW2d 752 (1967), observing "an unconstitutional statutory provision though in form and name a law is from the beginning no law at all; * * * the invalidity thereof dates from the time of enactment * * * and * * * such a provision is at no time effective for any purpose".

Furthermore, Section 13(3) of Act 77, provides for a 180-day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced,


Therefore the judges were acting as politicians in black robes consequently the sham ruling will be reversed by SCOTUS
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,726
Reaction score
2,438
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA

The Michigan Supreme Court ruling transgresses upon the following Federal Rights

"The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. § 5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

SCOTUS will reverse Michigan's politicians in black robes.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be reversed by SCOTUS
Yes... bullshit law saying when the bullshit law can be challenged has not much weight in it.
No different than the statues of limitations the federal government imposes on itself. Or the time limits of the Speedy Trials Act 1974 - 18 USC 3161
Bullshit, that's not what they even argued, as they directly state:

"While the Commonwealth also relies upon Section 13(3) of Act 77, providing for a 180- day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced, given our reliance upon the doctrine of laches, we do not speak to this basis for dismissal. "

Supreme court it is.
The Supreme Court is who just dismissed the case with prejudice.
Trolololoo...

US Supreme Court...
There’s no federal question so the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
Can you then explain, why is the matter of the ballots that arrived after 8 PM on the SCOTUS right now? Mind you, a other case where the SC of PA went 100% political.

An illegitimate election is a bigger deal than a ballot arriving after 8 PM.

I doubt many expected the Supreme Court of PA to decide the matter any other way. Clearly they are political hacks.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top