Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit

originally posted by: Klassified
The same judge who ordered a halt to the certification of PA's vote has now ruled a second time to stop certification and that the state election was unconstitutional...

A group of Republican lawmakers and candidates sued the Keystone State earlier this week, arguing that the state legislature’s mail-in voting law—Act 77—violated the commonwealth’s constitution.

“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,” McCullough wrote.

The story I'm getting from other sources is that the governor then went on record stating that he had already certified said results, prompting a response from the judge to halt any further attempts to certify.

Pennsylvania said that it had certified the results of the election for president and vice president on Nov. 24 while the court was reviewing briefings from both parties. In response, the plaintiffs filed a request for an emergency injunction, arguing that that state need not have acted so fast.

The judge agreed.
Link

This was not a Trump team suit. More and more it seems, there are other interested parties filing their own suits and winning. This is very helpful in propelling their own as well as the Trump team suits to the SCOTUS. We'll see where it goes from here.
Also see Carewemust's related thead here.

Don't worry... someone will soon be by to find a misspelling or typo or OCR anomaly to discredit the merits...

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: elementalgrove
Very possible at this point. The independent lawsuits along with Trump's team are gradually turning the tide. There's still a long way to go though.

In the immortal words of Bon Scott "it's harder than it looks"

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Klassified


Omg that's amazing.......
That still won't make him the diaper and chief.
He only hope is in the courts or the electoral collage.
And both would be a first in American history. If memory serves me correct.

Are you saying the EC has never elected the president?

20 electoral votes are at stake, hopefully 1 down two to go

306 - 20 = 286
232 + 20 = 252

MI & WI are next

a reply to: Klassified

Bulls on a parade

The PA Supreme Court just vacated the injunction and dismissed the lawsuit.

www.pacourts.us...

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 reply to: nataylor
Not unexpected. It now heads to the scotus I think, but no matter, it looks as if the PA legislators are going to appoint the electors instead of the secretary of state anyway.

I don't see how this WON'T get to the supreme court. The SC just ruled against dictator cuomo and his 10 person limit. And what do you know the news started saying how bad it was lolol

If enough people get involved...boards and directors...legislators all testifying...IT'S A WRAP

There's no more narrative of "Dictator trump trying to steal honest election"...done, kaput... it's an army of honest Americans breaking open the truth. That's THE path to victory.

originally posted by: nataylor
The PA Supreme Court just vacated the injunction and dismissed the lawsuit.

The PA Supreme Court is the one that first changed the election rules there, violating their own State Constitution.

SCOTUS Judge Alito ruled that they could not do that.

The PA Supreme Court did it anyways, essentially telling Alito to go pound sand.

Now that they have thrown this out, it will go to the Court Of Appeals.

Presided over by Judge Alito....

Yea... I see this as going swimmingly well for them.

You do realize these "illegal" votes were cast by real U.S. citizens, right? You are trying to take the voting rights away from people just because they wanted to vote by mail in a pandemic, which is fundamentally unethical.

originally posted by: darkbake
You do realize these "illegal" votes were cast by real U.S. citizens, right? You are trying to take the voting rights away from people just because they wanted to vote by mail in a pandemic, which is fundamentally unethical.

Is the court unethical? That is what we are talking about right?

Personally I feel if a person can't even request a ballot, or at sometime before the election actually register I don't think they deserve to vote. I would like all Americans to put in one ounce of effort...lol

It is not about disenfranchising Americans is it about accountability as we see that even 20k in votes make a difference. I want EVERYONE to vote but I also want zero possibility of fraud too. In 2020 is it that hard...lol

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: nataylor
The PA Supreme Court just vacated the injunction and dismissed the lawsuit.

The PA Supreme Court is the one that first changed the election rules there, violating their own State Constitution.

SCOTUS Judge Alito ruled that they could not do that.

The PA Supreme Court did it anyways, essentially telling Alito to go pound sand.

Now that they have thrown this out, it will go to the Court Of Appeals.

Presided over by Judge Alito....

Yea... I see this as going swimmingly well for them.

You don't seem to know how these things work. It is not appealable to the federal courts of appeals. If it is appealable at all, it will be to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Court likely would not even hear the case, and even if it did, it would likely determine that it cannot reach the merits of the case because the case rests on independent state grounds. This case is effectively over.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: nataylor
Not unexpected. It now heads to the scotus I think, but no matter, it looks as if the PA legislators are going to appoint the electors instead of the secretary of state anyway.

Scotus likely will not hear the case, and if they do, unlikely to alter the result. Any source for your claim that the PA legislator is about to select its electors?

originally posted by: darkbake
You do realize these "illegal" votes were cast by real U.S. citizens, right? You are trying to take the voting rights away from people just because they wanted to vote by mail in a pandemic, which is fundamentally unethical.

I thought the process of absentee ballots had been available for a long time now? If there were problems with absentee ballots, shouldnt they have been worked out by now?

The Nov 4 voting day has been known for a long time, did it sneak up on anyone?

No surprise to anyone that the fraud happened, from Sept 2.
"Wolf, this is a sort of cheap talk to get around the fundamental problem, which is the Bipartisan Commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker said back in 2009 that mail-in voting is fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion," Barr said."

It would seem the Dims took advantage of the situation for their "Time Honored Tradition"

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: darkbake
You do realize these "illegal" votes were cast by real U.S. citizens, right? You are trying to take the voting rights away from people just because they wanted to vote by mail in a pandemic, which is fundamentally unethical.

I thought the process of absentee ballots had been available for a long time now? If there were problems with absentee ballots, shouldnt they have been worked out by now?

The Nov 4 voting day has been known for a long time, did it sneak up on anyone?

No surprise to anyone that the fraud happened, from Sept 2.
"Wolf, this is a sort of cheap talk to get around the fundamental problem, which is the Bipartisan Commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker said back in 2009 that mail-in voting is fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion," Barr said."

It would seem the Dims took advantage of the situation for their "Time Honored Tradition"

You are quite right that this law had been in place for a long time--over a year, including during the primary. That is precisely why the PA supreme court threw out the lawsuit: it was untimely and the Plaintiffs had already had every opportunity to litigate the issue in a timely manner.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: nataylor
Not unexpected. It now heads to the scotus I think, but no matter, it looks as if the PA legislators are going to appoint the electors instead of the secretary of state anyway.

Scotus likely will not hear the case, and if they do, unlikely to alter the result. Any source for your claim that the PA legislator is about to select its electors?

Why not? They already ordered a separate count. Not sure what they will do, but they have already acted once.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: darkbake
You do realize these "illegal" votes were cast by real U.S. citizens, right? You are trying to take the voting rights away from people just because they wanted to vote by mail in a pandemic, which is fundamentally unethical.

I thought the process of absentee ballots had been available for a long time now? If there were problems with absentee ballots, shouldnt they have been worked out by now?

The Nov 4 voting day has been known for a long time, did it sneak up on anyone?

No surprise to anyone that the fraud happened, from Sept 2.
"Wolf, this is a sort of cheap talk to get around the fundamental problem, which is the Bipartisan Commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker said back in 2009 that mail-in voting is fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion," Barr said."

It would seem the Dims took advantage of the situation for their "Time Honored Tradition"

You are quite right that this law had been in place for a long time--over a year, including during the primary. That is precisely why the PA supreme court threw out the lawsuit: it was untimely and the Plaintiffs had already had every opportunity to litigate the issue in a timely manner.

Mass emailing is not the same as absentee ballots, but either way, long standing laws are struck down.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: darkbake
You do realize these "illegal" votes were cast by real U.S. citizens, right? You are trying to take the voting rights away from people just because they wanted to vote by mail in a pandemic, which is fundamentally unethical.

I thought the process of absentee ballots had been available for a long time now? If there were problems with absentee ballots, shouldnt they have been worked out by now?

The Nov 4 voting day has been known for a long time, did it sneak up on anyone?

No surprise to anyone that the fraud happened, from Sept 2.
"Wolf, this is a sort of cheap talk to get around the fundamental problem, which is the Bipartisan Commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker said back in 2009 that mail-in voting is fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion," Barr said."

It would seem the Dims took advantage of the situation for their "Time Honored Tradition"

You are quite right that this law had been in place for a long time--over a year, including during the primary. That is precisely why the PA supreme court threw out the lawsuit: it was untimely and the Plaintiffs had already had every opportunity to litigate the issue in a timely manner.

Mass emailing is not the same as absentee ballots, but either way, long standing laws are struck down.

I don't know what you are saying. Can you elaborate?

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: nataylor
Not unexpected. It now heads to the scotus I think, but no matter, it looks as if the PA legislators are going to appoint the electors instead of the secretary of state anyway.

Scotus likely will not hear the case, and if they do, unlikely to alter the result. Any source for your claim that the PA legislator is about to select its electors?

Why not? They already ordered a separate count. Not sure what they will do, but they have already acted once.

Because this specific decision rests on an independent state law ground, which proscribes the bringing of legal challenges to laws after a certain time limit has passed. Because of this, the Supreme Court will likely determine that it does not have the ability to act here.