PA Trial Court Halts Certification: Finds the Election Unconstitutional

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,182
Reaction score
22,993
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
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.
It's in the PA Constitution. Not just some law. You are clueless once again.
That piece of shit exists in a state of constant cluelessness.

We are not a democracy, we never were. The more we move towards one, the worse our country gets. We are approaching 3rd world status thanks to these sniveling parasites and their "democracy".

More of an Idiocracy if you ask me.


.
Yeah it’s been all downhill since women and black people were allowed to vote.
 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,422
Reaction score
2,259
Points
290
Location
State 48
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims
I disagree that they'll prevail. It seems to me that the only thing happening here is that the judge is allowing the petitioners to have their day in court. Their basic complaint boils down to their contention that Act 77 was illegally passed last year and I doubt you'll find a judge in the land that contends the baby should be tossed out with the bath water.

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.​
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
From the opinion:

Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
Throwing out the votes of 2.5 million people. Happy?
No, it should go to the house.

That said, everyone knows Trump would have won without the mail in bullshit - in fact he would have won if they bothered checking the signatures properly.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims
I disagree that they'll prevail. It seems to me that the only thing happening here is that the judge is allowing the petitioners to have their day in court. Their basic complaint boils down to their contention that Act 77 was illegally passed last year and I doubt you'll find a judge in the land that contends the baby should be tossed out with the bath water.

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.​
We can all read what the judge said. You can try to condense the opinion to one sentence in an attempt to distort it to mean what you want, but no one is fooled.

It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,585
Reaction score
6,415
Points
265
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.
It's in the PA Constitution. Not just some law. You are clueless once again.
He is probably talking about the law that is unconstitutional - ACT 77, which allowed mail in voting.

Indeed, that was passed by republicans. Which makes a big fat who cares.
This poster was laying the blame at the feet of liberals. I was pointing how his mistake.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
56,675
Reaction score
15,088
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
If anyone believes Biden would have won PA without the mail in votes with almost zero ballots thrown out as democrats did not enforce signature checking, they are delusional.

Since the mail in process was unlawful, the state should be given to Trump.
The process matters not, to the citizens who were told it was okay to vote that way.

They chose Biden, by nearly 80000 Pennsylvania citizens who voted in the manner they were TOLD WAS LEGAL....

Even if the whole state's citizen vote was thrown out ,(unlikely) and the legislature picks the electors, (unlikely), the legislators are REPRESENTATIVES, for the citizens, and the legislature should pick a slate of electors, that represents the vote of the PA voters, and send a Biden slate of electors.
 

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,182
Reaction score
22,993
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
Clearly the PA Constitution was violated. Sad that liberal morons probably just got all those votes tossed, but what else can be done?
The only remedy as I understand is that the legislatures decides the outcome.
Wrong.

The judge said there are several possible remedies, and that isn’t one of them.

Understand what you are arguing. It’s not just the Presidential election in PA that is under question. It is the entire election in PA that is under question. Everything.

Note also that in court, the plaintiffs will be asked “You knew about this for months. Why are you filing this complaint now?” If they were concerned about the constitutionality of the election, why are they filing it three weeks after the election?

The reason, of course, is because they lost. But they won’t say that. This means the judges will be under pressure to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people, which they will be loathe to do.

So the odds of this actually happening are low.
Absolute nonsense. Here is what the court says:

"Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim."

And that's why the emergency proceedings started. Please stop with the CNN nonsense. Of course, that is what the law literally says, the ballots are illegal. As for the remedy, sure throwing all the ballots out is on the table, but that's preposterous.

Biden sure as hell did not win legally so you can stick the "Biden won" narrative to your ass.
“Have a likelihood of success” means they have a chance of winning, not a high chance of winning.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
Clearly the PA Constitution was violated. Sad that liberal morons probably just got all those votes tossed, but what else can be done?
The only remedy as I understand is that the legislatures decides the outcome.
Wrong.

The judge said there are several possible remedies, and that isn’t one of them.

Understand what you are arguing. It’s not just the Presidential election in PA that is under question. It is the entire election in PA that is under question. Everything.

Note also that in court, the plaintiffs will be asked “You knew about this for months. Why are you filing this complaint now?” If they were concerned about the constitutionality of the election, why are they filing it three weeks after the election?

The reason, of course, is because they lost. But they won’t say that. This means the judges will be under pressure to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people, which they will be loathe to do.

So the odds of this actually happening are low.
Absolute nonsense. Here is what the court says:

"Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim."

And that's why the emergency proceedings started. Please stop with the CNN nonsense. Of course, that is what the law literally says, the ballots are illegal. As for the remedy, sure throwing all the ballots out is on the table, but that's preposterous.

Biden sure as hell did not win legally so you can stick the "Biden won" narrative to your ass.
“Have a likelihood of success” means they have a chance of winning, not a high chance of winning.
What in the fuck, clearly you have no idea what the term means.


Likelihood of success on the merits is one of the factors considered by a court in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction to a plaintiff. Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, this factors is important because it establishes that the plaintiff will probably win the case anyway.

Preliminary injunction
A preliminary injunction is designed to maintain the status quo pending a trial. The test applied to determine the proprietary of issuing a preliminary injunction differs from one federal circuit to another.

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.[1] A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. [2] In each case, courts “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.”[3] Because it issues before liability is determined, a preliminary injunction is considered “one of the most drastic tools in the arsenal of judicial remedies.”[4]

 

my2¢

So it goes
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
10,422
Reaction score
2,259
Points
290
Location
State 48
We can all read what the judge said. You can try to condense the opinion to one sentence in an attempt to distort it to mean what you want, but no one is fooled.
You offered your opinion that they would prevail, I offered mine. The basis of my opinion, that you don't go around tossing the baby out with the bath water, goes to say I don't believe any court is going to toss out votes from people who properly followed the rules they were given.

What's your basis for believing they will? Take as many sentences as you'd like.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,585
Reaction score
6,415
Points
265
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
The law was passed over a year ago. If the people wanted to file a lawsuit, they should have done it before the election rather than waiting until after when the lawsuit may result in throwing out millions of votes from people who did nothing wrong.
 

iceberg

Platinum Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
29,894
Reaction score
8,746
Points
490
How queer that Act 77 was perfectly fine and constitutional when Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell won their primaries with it in effect. They had many months prior to the election to challenge the constitutionality of act, but sat on their hands until after the election.

I hope your My Pillows are waterproof b/c I suspect a deluge of tears will follow when this gets thrown out of court as well.
Then democrats should have challenged it.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
The law was passed over a year ago. If the people wanted to file a lawsuit, they should have done it before the election rather than waiting until after when the lawsuit may result in throwing out millions of votes from people who did nothing wrong.
I agree... with the proviso that they knew about it. This has not been established. That said, every single person behind the decision should have known about the law. It is criminal levels of incompetence.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
20,585
Reaction score
6,415
Points
265
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
The law was passed over a year ago. If the people wanted to file a lawsuit, they should have done it before the election rather than waiting until after when the lawsuit may result in throwing out millions of votes from people who did nothing wrong.
I agree... with the proviso that they knew about it. This has not been established. That said, every single person behind the decision should have known about the law. It is criminal levels of incompetence.
How could they not know about it? The text of the law wasn’t some secret. Neither is the text of the constitution.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
27,007
Reaction score
7,840
Points
290
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.
She is wrong about that. The Legislature in PA is the ONLY authority regarding elections.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
If anyone believes Biden would have won PA without the mail in votes with almost zero ballots thrown out as democrats did not enforce signature checking, they are delusional.

Since the mail in process was unlawful, the state should be given to Trump.
The process matters not, to the citizens who were told it was okay to vote that way.

They chose Biden, by nearly 80000 Pennsylvania citizens who voted in the manner they were TOLD WAS LEGAL....

Even if the whole state's citizen vote was thrown out ,(unlikely) and the legislature picks the electors, (unlikely), the legislators are REPRESENTATIVES, for the citizens, and the legislature should pick a slate of electors, that represents the vote of the PA voters, and send a Biden slate of electors.
Biden did not win, Trump won the state if only legal votes are counted.

They will pick Trump.
 

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
836
Reaction score
1,019
Points
873
Location
Wisconsin
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
If anything the executive failed. It is their job to enforce the laws. The fact the legislature is bringing this just means they are taking responsibility for their error.
 
OP
Norman

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,060
Points
1,590
It would not be surprising if the matter went to supreme court.
The SC of PA will probably weigh in soon. SCOTUS will not, there’s no federal question.

Waiting until after the election to file the lawsuit is particularly cruel.
The case is not about intent of the filers, and it's rather absurd to call them cruel when we don't even know when they found out about the problem.

Do recall, the law got passed and no fuzz was risen about the fact it's illegal by anyone. A supreme act of incompetence.
If anything the executive failed. It is their job to enforce the laws. The fact the legislature is bringing this just means they are taking responsibility for their error.
It's a total farce...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top