PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,245
Reaction score
13,354
Points
2,210
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...
If it's a question of State Law, it's not clear to me that there is a federal question for SCOTUS, further, October 31, 2019 is well over the 180 day line.

The PA supreme court is a Left Wing Political Court. I see no way that they are going to toss this election to the GOP Legislature.
Nor should they. There's no reason to flip a state to Trump that he lost.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
98,124
Reaction score
26,220
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
Clearly the PA Constitution was violated. Sad that liberal morons probably just got all those votes tossed, but what else can be done?
Actually it was Republicans passed the law that they are attempting to declare unconstitutional.

This whole affair has shown just how delicate Democracy is, when people like yourself seem so willing to abandon it.
Yeah.....as if being Republican these days means you're not part of the coup.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
1,791
Points
1,928
Pretty weird that passing laws making it easier to vote is now considered being part of a coup.
What's really weird is some people thinking that voting is hard.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Pretty weird that passing laws making it easier to vote is now considered being part of a coup.
What's really weird is some people thinking that voting is hard.
What's weird is some people thinking that voting should be hard. Like waiting in line to vote longer than the line at the DMV.

I think it shouldn't take more than half an hour to vote, or your next vote is free.
 

citygator

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
3,198
Reaction score
2,212
Points
940
Location
Charlotte
Holy shit. This thread is hilarious. A basic Hail Mary of impotent proportions. No court will disenfranchise votes cast within the defined rules. Doesn’t matter what the ruling is on this issue. I love watching you guys keep hope alive.

 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
27,126
Reaction score
13,047
Points
1,100
Pretty weird that passing laws making it easier to vote is now considered being part of a coup.
What's really weird is some people thinking that voting is hard.

Not weird at all.

If its"easier" to vote, its easier to cheat. And the PA state legislature didn't change the rules, the partisan courts of PA did.

Rep. Mike Kelly is a tremendous Congressman, I am really glad I voted for him. Mr. Kelly is an ordinary fellow, a professional man who earned his livelihood as a salesman of preowned automobiles. An honest guy, not a lawyer at all.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,846
Reaction score
6,508
Points
265
If its"easier" to vote, its easier to cheat. And the PA state legislature didn't change the rules, the partisan courts of PA did.
Not entirely. You should do some research because the issue at play here is Act 77 which was passed on a bipartisan basis to make voting by mail easier.
 

DukeU

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
1,791
Points
1,928
If its"easier" to vote, its easier to cheat. And the PA state legislature didn't change the rules, the partisan courts of PA did.

Rep. Mike Kelly is a tremendous Congressman, I am really glad I voted for him. Mr. Kelly is an ordinary fellow, a professional man who earned his livelihood as a salesman of preowned automobiles. An honest guy, not a lawyer at all.
:eusa_clap:

That was my point, voting is not hard, so there's no reason to make it "easier" unless you have other reasons to make it easy. And, yes the courts did change the voting laws unconstitutionally.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
Alito responds to PA appeal — but there’s just one catch

Placeholder Image


Moot? Depends on what plaintiffs really want.

The good news for Rep. Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, et al: Justice Samuel Alito has decided to review their appeal of the Pennsylvania state supreme court decision. That ruling tossed out their attempt to challenge Act 77’s mass mail-in balloting as in direct contradiction to the state constitution. Relying on the doctrine of laches, the court arguably set up an impossible catch-22 in attempting to deal with an arguably unconstitutional law (via The Right Scoop):

Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the battleground state.
Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly of northwestern Pennsylvania and the other plaintiffs are asking the high court to prevent the state from certifying any contests from the Nov. 3 election, and undo any certifications already made, such as Biden’s victory, while its lawsuit is considered.
With a provision:
Justice Samuel Alito ordered the state’s lawyers to respond by Dec. 9, a day after what is known as the safe harbor deadline.
Congress cannot challenge any electors named by Dec 8 in accordance with state law.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
3,547
Points
930
Congress cannot challenge any electors named by Dec 8 in accordance with state law.
Actually that's federal law.


3 U.S.C. 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of ...
www.govinfo.gov › USCODE-2011-title3-chap1-sec5


§5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673.)
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top