Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[vas3381]

1. Can they appeal this?

What happens next?

[bronxiteforever]

28. Pat?

[Squinch]

2. PA certified the vote a week ago.

[Squinch]

5. I read it. It will not make any difference.

[Squinch]

24. You should probably worry a lot about that.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. This is all irrelevant.

The current PA General Assembly session ENDS Monday, November 30, 2020 and the new General Assembly, post-election, must be seated by Tuesday December 1st, 2020, otherwise the entire General Assembly (except perhaps 1/2 of the State Senate) becomes null and void, and they will have no power to do anything including "appoint electors".

Link to tweet

TEXT

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
·
Nov 28, 2020
Replying to @JohnFetterman
All of this: the bizarre snake-handling at the Ramada, the tin foil hat conspiracy theories, is demented carnival barking to distract from they *can’t find any fraud whatsoever*

Zero. Their “cases” are quite

seriously laughed out of court- even by the Trump appointees. 2/3
Image
John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
By Monday, our legislative term expires, because their election results haven’t been certified-because of a GOP lawsuit - they couldn’t vote on this even if they were able to.

Twisted spectacle is the final refuge for the sad, the desperate, the sycophant, the snake-handler.
5:23 AM · Nov 28, 2020 from Braddock, PA

[BumRushDaShow]

10. It does absolutely nothing of the sort.

I live here and it's not happening.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. You do realize that you posted a link that goes to a RW source?

[dware]

20. Yeah, I think the person realizes that.

Makes one wonder doesn't it.

[Squinch]

22. I think you are right.

[RandiFan1290]

32. Welcome Back to DU

You're not fooling me

[Squinch]

49. Oh dear! You have cut me to the core! I am so chastened!

[Atticus]

50. Ya know, I think it I'll behooves a (supposed) newby who's been here just 16 days to begin

calling long-time DUers "conspiracy nuts" and their comments "crap", especially while posting the inflammatory views of the Dark Side.

Don't mistake civility and restraint as weakness.

[dware]

36. Oh, BTW, welcome back.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. You do know that the ruling is available from OTHER sources

rather than from RW loon Mark Levin.

ETA - like here - https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/kelly-order.pdf

[BumRushDaShow]

39. You do need to self-delete this

As a note, Act 77 has a provision in it that states that any issues about "constitutionality" MUST be raised within 6 months after enactment. The bill became law with Wolf's signature on October 31st, 2019 and the deadline was at the start of the Primary election on April 28, 2020 (which was later moved to June 2, 2020).

They are done. This will be thrown out and this attempt at ex post facto application will be thrown out - the certification has been made and the SCOTUS has so far NOT gotten involved in PA's court rulings believe it or not.

[MrsCoffee]

40. +1

[dware]

41. +100. nt

[Just_Vote_Dem]

47. Thank you

[BumRushDaShow]

54. Uh no. Sorry try again.

I posted this last week - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142633552#post27

From Act 77 -

PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 Cl. 25

Session of 2019
No. 2019-77
SB 421

AN ACT

(snip)

Section 12. Repeals are as follows:

(snip)

(2) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a challenge to or to render a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of a provision referred to in paragraph (1). The Supreme Court may take action it deems appropriate, consistent with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction over the matter, to find facts or to expedite a final judgment in connection with such a challenge or request for declaratory relief.

(3) An action under paragraph (2) must be commenced within 180 days of the effective date of this section.

Section 14. This act shall apply to elections held on or after April 28, 2020.

Section 15. This act shall take effect as follows:

(1) The addition of section 207 of the act shall take effect in 180 days.

(2) The amendment of section 908 of the act shall take effect in 60 days.

(3) The remainder of this act shall take effect immediately.



APPROVED--The 31st day of October, A.D. 2019.



TOM WOLF

[BumRushDaShow]

61. Um you do get that rulings from state Supreme courts HAVE been taken to the SCOTUS

before - like in 2018, when the PA State Supreme Court redrew the gerrymandered Congressional Districts and the GOP whined and whined and took it to the SCOTUS as being "unconstitutional" and they of course waved it away because... "states rights".

This case came out a week ago and this "ruling" from a Commonwealth court judge, who has been overruled over and over by the PA State Supreme Court, has been pretty much laughed at and dismissed.

There is "nothing" that changed after the 6 month period. We actually had a Primary election using this same law and no one had any "cases" about it. This is why this will fail like the rest of the nonsense.

THIS is the case that she ruled on - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-group-of-pennsylvania-republicans-are-suing-to-try-to-invalidate-millions-of-mail-in-ballots-and-stop-the-state-from-certifying-the-election-results/ar-BB1beTHU?ocid=DELLDHP

[bronxiteforever]

44. Patricia?

[MrsCoffee]

45. I probably shouldn't have laughed so hard at that.

Need more coffee, lol.

[Demsrule86]

64. This case has been dismissed. PA supremes blocked the order and dismissed it

yesterday...not only are you posting right wing nonsense but, you are supporting incorrect information. This is from the 25th.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. The RW loons have had many "court cases" that failed

There is no "separate thing". The electors in PA, as voted for by us during the primary and confirmed during the general election, have been selected by the Governor (and one of them happens to be my City Council rep). The End.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. This basically moot case was filed in PA STATE court (Commonwealth)

And guess what? Over and over and over the PA State Supreme Court, which is majority (D), has thrown their nonsense out. The State Supreme Court is 5 (D) - 2 (R).



You see no one here, including the Governor, Lt. Governor, and State Attorney General, getting worked up over nothing.

[MrsCoffee]

42. Who is beating the horse here?

[MrsCoffee]

67. You rode in on the dead horse. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

43. I'm fine

Seems the "dead horse" is the OP.

[DonaldsRump]

55. Agreed. The OP seems obsessive about posting on this

You have made a LOT of personal attacks here AND you cite to a rightwing source in your first post.

Should we commend you?

This is not YOUR post in the sense that it allows you to do whatever you want with impugnity. DU doesn't work that way.

[Demsrule86]

65. Do you?

[Demsrule86]

66. Do you?

[bullimiami]

11. This is their play now that suppression and courts have failed.

It’s a cynical and absurd case to make that even though the states passed laws to govern elections and then have those elections, really it’s the state legislatures that have the power to appoint any electors they want. Not just that but that the legislature does this on its own without the Governors signature.

This is what you come up with when you look at the scoreboard and have nothing left but 4 onside kicks and a couple of hail marys.

[snowybirdie]

12. Post after post

filled with gloom and doom. Nothing is ever allowed by the Courts. We've got to stop obsessing over every crazy lawsuit. Biden won by over 6million votes and has over 300 electoral votes. Don't forget self interest will keep federal judges from overturning that. Relax folks and enjoy the fact were getting a new president soon. Yeah!

[Tom Rivers]

35. Bringing lawsuits against vote-by-mail should've happened prior to the election

It's too late. I just can't see millions of votes getting thrown out when people voted via that method in good faith at the time. Vote-by-mail was being presented in blue states and red states, supported by democrats and republicans alike, due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.

Are we going to throw out the entire election and make everyone, including the elderly and immunocompromised, do a re-vote all in-person at the new height of the pandemic? Or are our state legislature overlords going to decide what's best for us? You tell me exactly what the end game is? If they toss all mail ballots and just give it to Trump I support a God damned civil war and NATO invasion of this criminal country. Just tear the whole thing down. This thread has my stomach in knots right now.

[bronxiteforever]

46. Teflon Don?

?fit=1600%2C1600&ssl=1

[DonaldsRump]

60. You really need to cut out the condescension

Folks on DU are far more aware than your sarcastic comments give them credit for.

Trump lost. He's not as great as you make him out to be.

Face facts.

[AkFemDem]

23. It's okay not to relax yet

This isn’t Trumps lawsuit, and the court is allowing it thus far (can’t imagine this stands)

I’m all for being optimistic but I do think it’s naive to just blow off legitimate concerns. It’s not as if this administration hasn’t showed us exactly how crooked and devious they can be.

[MrsCoffee]

15. Lol.

[AkFemDem]

18. Note who the petitioners are-

Down ballot candidates; not the Trump legal team. Also remember this is just one judge, and she doesn’t get to call the election. While all of this is of course relevant and people should be watching all of these legal processes with concern, it’s not time to panic yet.

[AkFemDem]

26. No where- reread what I wrote

I’m pointing out we should be watching carefully, but we don’t need to panic. Not that YOU are panicking

[Alhena]

48. My legal analysis of this ....

This is purely a question of PA state law, and the PA Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. That is a 5-2 democratic court, and there is no way they are going to agree with this trial judge's ruling.

In theory, that PA Supreme Court ruling could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, but, once again, this is purely an issue of PA state law. As this link notes, SCOTUS doesn't rule on those issues:

"The Supreme Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue of state law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where the state court's ruling deals with Constitutional issues."

http://adacourse.org/courtconcepts/scotus.html

The "Constitutional issues" referenced above refers to US, not PA, constitutional issues. You may recall a while back that SCOTUS decided to take up a ruling by the PA Supreme Court on mail-in voting issues. However, they only did so because they found a US constitutional angle in that appeal, namely the US constitution's requirement that state legislatures, and not Supreme Courts are to decide on how presidential electors are decided. 3 judges (Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch) thought that the PA Supreme Court had violated that US Constitutional provision by deciding the issue of how late-arriving mail ballots should be handled.

I see no such US constitutional issue in this particular case. This rule that Judge McCullough is leaning towards striking down was set by the PA Legislature, as the US constitution requires. The US Constitution has no problem with mail in voting, and the petition in this complaint does not contend otherwise. So SCOTUS should not even hear this appeal under their own rules for taking cases.

Now even assuming that SCOTUS were to disregard this and somehow overrule the PA Supreme Court anyway (VERY unlikely), and the question of PA's electors got sent to the PA Legislature, there is simply no way on earth that the Legislature would say "yeah, ok, we set these rules on PA's election, and the people voted in the way we told them to and Biden got the most votes, but we screwed up and violated the PA constitution in those rules, so we're gonna punish the people who did what we told them to do and disenfranchise them and make Trump the winner." There is zero chance of that happening.

So relax, there is no chance Biden will not win PA.

[FelineOverlord]

57. Patricia A. McCullough Upholds emergency preliminary injunction, pending Evidentiary Hearing

"Patricia" has an interesting background:

Link to tweet

[Freddie]

58. I think even Alito, loathsome as he is

Does not want to go on record disenfranchising millions of voters who voted in good faith, and starting possibly unprecedented civil unrest.

[Demsrule86]

62. This has already been dismissed. And it is a Levin link...as it goes through his site.

There is no case to be for posting this. You should delete ASAP.