USSC head in the ground

[colfax_m]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

IT IS WHEN THE people that changed it DONT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO CHANGE THEM,,,

Then bring it up before the election.

Oh, wait. You did. And you lost.

 

[colfax_m]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats. Challenge illegalities in the last election with a good case, you’re stuck in a classic catch-22 situation, as Ace pithily sums it up:

Before the inauguration: Not timely
After the certification: Moot

The two cases the Court declined to hear challenged the last minute changes to election law in Pennsylvania. Never mind that the US Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures the power to prescribe “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election by declaring the case moot..


Justices Thomas and Alito wrote dissenting opinions, with Justice Gorsuch concurring with Alito. Tyler O’Neil summarizes:

Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented “a clear example” of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. “The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas argued. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

“American Thinker”

lol

Unreliable source: wrongheaded, subjective, blind-partisan rightwing opinion.

It’s perfectly appropriate and warranted that the Court refuse to hear such nonsense; there was no election ‘fraud’ – the challenges are completely devoid of merit.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

IT IS WHEN THE people that changed it DONT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO CHANGE THEM,,,

Then bring it up before the election.

Oh, wait. You did. And you lost.

from my understanding they did and were rejected because no harm had been done yet,,,

and it doesnt change the fact those that changed the rules didnt have legal authority to do it,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

no ones complain that was changed,,

 

[22lcidw]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

The swamp is alive.

 

[Moonglow]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

The swamp is alive.

All 300 million of them...

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

 

[bendog]

It's beyond ironic that PC actually cites to one of the formative cases of states having "plenary" power to control their own state elections.

 

[Cecilie1200]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats. Challenge illegalities in the last election with a good case, you’re stuck in a classic catch-22 situation, as Ace pithily sums it up:

Before the inauguration: Not timely
After the certification: Moot

The two cases the Court declined to hear challenged the last minute changes to election law in Pennsylvania. Never mind that the US Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures the power to prescribe “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election by declaring the case moot..


Justices Thomas and Alito wrote dissenting opinions, with Justice Gorsuch concurring with Alito. Tyler O’Neil summarizes:

Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented “a clear example” of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. “The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas argued. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

States get to control their own elections, and the PA SC is state govt. That's called "federalism." A basic tenant of our original conservative party. Will people be so concerned when GA gets back to closing polls in maj black areas and their SC doesn't do anything?

Too bad for your "I like the results, so that means it was LEGAL!" argument that the Constitution - I assume you've at least HEARD of it, right? - doesn't say, "Anyone in the state government can change the law whenever they like". It actually says - and I quote - "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof". Does that sound like, "As long as it's someone in the government" to you? So no, that's not called "federalism"; that's called "usurpation of power".

So much for your lame-ass attempt to put a patina of legality and respectability on your party's blatant violation of election law. And don't even get me started on your even-more-lame ploy of, "Never mind what a bunch of election-stealing, law-ignoring pieces of shit WE are!!! You hate black people, because I just KNOW you do!!" Typical leftist, using blacks as meat shields and cannon fodder.

 

[Lastamender]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

Are you under the impression Conservatives cannot be corrupted or intimidated? Come on back when you grow up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's beyond ironic that PC actually cites to one of the formative cases of states having "plenary" power to control their own state elections.

It's beyond laughable that you think "state legislature" means "anyone in the state government will do."

Actually, I really doubt you DO think that. But you're going to keep pretending you do, because it's the only way for you to avoid thinking about what your positions say about you as a "person".

 

[BluesLegend]

the Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats.

The FACT is there's not enough time between the election and certification to properly investigate DEM ORGANIZED ELECTION FRAUD and gather the evidence the court will accept. If the SCOTUS won't take up that issue then why even have a SCOTUS. Just replace the SCOTUS with some guy with a rubber stamp.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's beyond ironic that PC actually cites to one of the formative cases of states having "plenary" power to control their own state elections.

Here are two new words for you....'legislatures'.....and 'Constitution.'

Heck....don't bother looking anything up...as a Democrat you can simply lie about everything.



"I never said I oppose fracking"







At 7:20

 

[okfine]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats. Challenge illegalities in the last election with a good case, you’re stuck in a classic catch-22 situation, as Ace pithily sums it up:

Before the inauguration: Not timely
After the certification: Moot

The two cases the Court declined to hear challenged the last minute changes to election law in Pennsylvania. Never mind that the US Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures the power to prescribe “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election by declaring the case moot..


Justices Thomas and Alito wrote dissenting opinions, with Justice Gorsuch concurring with Alito. Tyler O’Neil summarizes:

Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented “a clear example” of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. “The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas argued. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

Another "not" winning day. Also for Stormy. Guess that goes for both of them.

 

[okfine]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

 

[22lcidw]

The conservative Supreme Court at that.

The swamp is alive.

All 300 million of them...

I guarantee you. If the court was reversed, all of the Progs would vote in favor of the Progressive Socialist party. These Repub judges are either shills or think the nation is Mayberry as they do not see the growing tyranny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com

 

[okfine]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com

And twice as many said otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's beyond ironic that PC actually cites to one of the formative cases of states having "plenary" power to control their own state elections.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.

As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote.

"Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com