Pennsylvania Secretary of State usurped the authority of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

a reply to: dug88

Well I always hope to see some conjecture from every poster it doesnt happen with some most others though have great viewpoints from both sides. It's nice to see people disagree without screaming at each other.

Some just haven't yet or will never wake up.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: Annee

Gotta read the extremes also not white supremacist garbage but give Alex jones a listen here and there then go watch cnn. They are polar opposites. Then watch mark dice then Brian stelter.

Tell me stelter doesnt sound like the muffin man.

I’ve been here since 2007.

Lurked before that.

Was on on MS messenger 1999 - 2005.

Did ICQ before that.

I am not ignorant of different thoughts. But, after awhile there’s discernment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: putnam6

I try to focus on facts rather than emotions.

I will say that I am amazed that 17 State AGs signed on/supported this.

Texas I understand. Paxton has issues.

If the SCOTUS were even to ENTERTAIN this case, it would be arguably the most significant case in American history after Marbury vs. Madison. It would change the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the other two Branches. It would invalidate hundreds of cases already decided.

It's ... unthinkable the effect that even HEARING the case would have, much less how they decided.

Your entire post was based on emotion without any regard to reason, logic or facts.

I don’t think many people truly understand this nation and how it was founded.

The states agreed to a constitution in order to come together to oppose being ruled by the crown. Part of that constitution included how elections would be handled and where the authority would lie to make sure that the three branches of government remained as separate checks and balances.

Several states violated the US constitution and their own laws in this election cycle. Making illegal changes to the election process should invalidate the results because illegal activities were allowed to occur which changed the results of the election after November 3rd.

The results of the election in PA and elsewhere directly effects the states in the lawsuit. The only thing that holds the states together is the constitution. If the constitution is not upheld in all 50 states equally then we might as well dissolve the union.

This case is about election integrity and about makings sure that every state follows the same laws regarding elections. To ensure that potential fraud is prevented by following all election laws pertaining to verification, computation and record retention in all 50 states and DC.

I believe that the Supreme Court must take the case and rule in favor of Texas. The only way to ensure that states take responsibility for their part in this union. The president should be set with this case that election results can and will be thrown out when it is clearly proven that laws were not followed. Regardless of intent or stupidity.

This is the only result that doesn’t disenfranchise voters unfairly. The people of PA and several other states elected their leaders. Their leaders broke the law and therefore their votes have been made void. Moral of the story, want your vote to count, don’t elect corrupt idiots.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Pennsylvania has in it's Laws, clearly defined Laws for voting. The Governor and the Secretary of State improperly changed those Laws on their own, without going through the Legislature. Pretty much what Wolf's done all year.

Been epic here in Pennsylvania. Between politics and pandemic.... epic.

COVID-19 In Pennsylvania: Gov. Tom Wolf Limits Gatherings, Shuts Down Indoor Dining And Suspends High School Sports For 3 Weeks

And here we go again. Saturday.
pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...

Talked the the guys at airport fire KPIT. It's a 35+ crew... second mandate

Wolf has taken over... elections pandemics. I'd settle for Ed Rendell again.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The first line in my post refers to my normal posting. Thank you for your evaluattion of my post though.

In the post you reference, I actually offered my personal opinion and reaction to Putnam6's question, and didn't claim that post was fact-based.

Opinions on the relative knowlege of American history not withstanding, the very first organizing document for the United States was the Articles of Confederation (1781). Our Constitution (1788) was the second attempt, as the Articles were proving insufficent to the needs of the nation.

Generally the Declaration of Independence (1776) is considered to be our severance with the British Crown.

The States are not required to follow "the same laws." States are actually given the right to establish their own Election laws in Amendment X.

My opinion on the case is already a matter of record.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: xuenchen

This is hilarious!

Brothers & Sisters...this IS the worst of times....

That's just bizarre, such hyperbole, there is nothing wrong with seeking SCOTUS for answers and potentially a resolution, even dismissal helps this process along.

edit on 10-12-2020 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: putnam6

I don't disagree. A dismissal is also a ruling.

Sadly, a dismissal may well be parlayed into "SCOTUS is Deep State."

EDIT: Sorry Putnam, something funky with your post.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

Sure.

Foster v. Love

Are you somewhere in this area? From pg 72?

While true that there is room for argument about just what may constitute the final act of selection within the meaning of the law, our decision does not turn on any nicety in isolating precisely what acts a State must cause to be done on federal election day (and not before it) in order to satisfy the statute. Without paring the term "election" in § 7 down to the definitional bone, it is enough to resolve this case to say that a contested selection of candidates for a congressional office that is concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress, clearly violates § 7.4

... to which you wish to claim that the elections in Georgia, Michaigan, et. al. are "contested"?

So you skipped the whole part about votes counted after midnight on a Federal election day cannot be counted and had to go to page 72 to pick on an obscure point that they were further defining?

You just reached so far that you are in Narnia.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: Annee

Gotta read the extremes also not white supremacist garbage but give Alex jones a listen here and there then go watch cnn. They are polar opposites. Then watch mark dice then Brian stelter.

Tell me stelter doesnt sound like the muffin man.

I’ve been here since 2007.

Lurked before that.

Was on on MS messenger 1999 - 2005.

Did ICQ before that.

I am not ignorant of different thoughts. But, after awhile there’s discernment.

Doing something wrong for a very long time does not make that thing suddenly right.

All it means is that you have been doing something wrong for a very long time.

a reply to: Lumenari

Why don't you cite the passage you wanted to highlight?

You know, for the dumb lefty....

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: Annee

Gotta read the extremes also not white supremacist garbage but give Alex jones a listen here and there then go watch cnn. They are polar opposites. Then watch mark dice then Brian stelter.

Tell me stelter doesnt sound like the muffin man.

I’ve been here since 2007.

Lurked before that.

Was on on MS messenger 1999 - 2005.

Did ICQ before that.

I am not ignorant of different thoughts. But, after awhile there’s discernment.

Doing something wrong for a very long time does not make that thing suddenly right.

All it means is that you have been doing something wrong for a very long time.

Guess you would know.

a reply to: Lumenari

Oh, by the by, if you need an actual link to the case, I've provided it.

You may notice that in that source at Justia, the case begins on page 67 and goes through page 74.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: putnam6

I don't disagree. A dismissal is also a ruling.

Sadly, a dismissal may well be parlayed into "SCOTUS is Deep State."

EDIT: Sorry Putnam, something funky with your post.

Yea my keyboard needed a new battery I deleted the quote mark by accident. Ain't the first time and likely won't be the last.

as far as the "Deep State" SCOTUS maybe for a few, but likely many more will respect its remarks, and it should hopefully quell some of the dissent we now see, it's part of the process.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: putnam6

I don't disagree. A dismissal is also a ruling.

Sadly, a dismissal may well be parlayed into "SCOTUS is Deep State."

EDIT: Sorry Putnam, something funky with your post.

Yea my keyboard needed a new battery I deleted the quote mark by accident. Ain't the first time and likely won't be the last.

as far as the "Deep State" SCOTUS maybe for a few, but likely many more will respect its remarks, and it should hopefully quell some of the dissent we now see, it's part of the process.

I wish I shared your optimism.

I get triple and quadruple posts quite often. SOmetimes particularly with a long series of imbedded quotes, I have the same issue. I just wanted you to know I hadn't excluded your post intentionally.

a reply to: Annee

I do. I prefer independent thinking (when I can find it).

I try to avoid those that lean too far to one side or the other (meaning both Left & Right).

How do you reach that determination ?
Guess ?
Flip a coin ?
Go only with the ones that match your emotions ?

a reply to: Gryphon66

In the post you reference, I actually offered my personal opinion and reaction to Putnam6's question, and didn't claim that post was fact-based.

"One is not entitled to their opinion. One is entitled to their informed opinion. No one is entitled to ignorance ."
Harlan Ellison.
Keep that close.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Annee

I do. I prefer independent thinking (when I can find it).

I try to avoid those that lean too far to one side or the other (meaning both Left & Right).

How do you reach that determination ?
Guess ?
Flip a coin ?
Go only with the ones that match your emotions ?

I think for myself.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Annee

I do. I prefer independent thinking (when I can find it).

I try to avoid those that lean too far to one side or the other (meaning both Left & Right).

How do you reach that determination ?
Guess ?
Flip a coin ?
Go only with the ones that match your emotions ?

I think for myself.

Really ?

I do. I prefer independent thinking (when I can find it).

You words , not mine.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Annee

I do. I prefer independent thinking (when I can find it).

I try to avoid those that lean too far to one side or the other (meaning both Left & Right).

How do you reach that determination ?
Guess ?
Flip a coin ?
Go only with the ones that match your emotions ?

I think for myself.

Really ?

I do. I prefer independent thinking (when I can find it).

You words , not mine.

And?

Is there a point?