• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed the case brought by Rep. Kelly (R-PA) that sought to throw out all mail ballots cast in November

W_Heisenberg

W_Heisenberg

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
21,671
Reaction score
19,705
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Pennsylvania Supreme court has just dismissed this case...and vacated the lower court's temporary injunction.


pittsburgh.cbslocal.com

Pa. Supreme Court Dismisses Request From Mike Kelly And Sean Parnell To Declare Mail-In Voting Unconstitutional In State, Deny Results From 2020 Election Mail-In Ballots

The PA Supreme Court has dismissed the Mike Kelly-Sean Parnell lawsuit that wanted to disqualify millions of no-excuse mail-in votes in the state.
pittsburgh.cbslocal.com pittsburgh.cbslocal.com

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed the lawsuit from Congressman Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell to declare universal mail-in voting unconstitutional in the state and deny the votes of the majority of Pennsylvanians who voted by mail in the Nov. 3 election.

The state Supreme Court dismissed the case on Saturday, based on the “Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner.”

The plaintiffs specifically cited issue with Act 77 and its “universal mail-in ballot provisions.”

They alleged that the provisions that allowed all qualified electors to vote by mail in Pennsylvania were unconstitutional. They called for mail-in ballots that they alleged did not meet “Constitutional requirements” to not be certified and for only “legal votes” to be certified, or for the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose the electors and compensate the legal costs of the plaintiffs.

Both Kelly and Parnell are registered Republicans.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump and his allies are now 1-39 in post-election litigation
 
So they voted to approve no-excuse mail-in ballots almost a year ago, waited until after the election and then challenged it as unconstitutional to disenfranchise everyone who used it.

iu
 
Cardinal said:
So they voted to approve no-excuse mail-in ballots almost a year ago, waited until after the election and then challenged it as unconstitutional to disenfranchise everyone who used it.

Cool.
Click to expand...
And think PA has a Republican legislature
You can bet if Trump had won PA they wouldn't be having all these BS cases
Have a nice night
 
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...
You're just asking for someone to come back and prove you wrong when SCOTUS doesn't even grant cert.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...
I bet I will like it just fine if it gets to the SC.
It will be a "massive" fail by Trump's legal team. imo, the SC will state " “Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” .
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...

what is your next step once the SCOTUS laughs at this and does not even take up the case?
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...
The issue was whether it was within PA's constitution, not the US Constitution. The PA Supreme Court has the final say on the state constitution. So as far as this case is concerned, it means everything.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...


What exactly do you think the US Supreme Court will review? The only thing that can be appealed is the dismissal. If by some act of magic the US Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and the district court all that will mean is the district court has to allow the case to move to discovery. That's it... They aren't going to make some big ruling on electors or anything like that...
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...

As much as you would like to see SC judges serve as political hacks, which is sad on its own, it is very unlikely the Supreme Court will get involved for 3 reasons: voting is a state matter, no discrimination has been shown, and since overturning the PA vote doesn't change the outcome of the election, the matter is moot. This is why the third string, Giuliani and Powell, are involved, and not highly qualified lawyers. They all know better.

I don't think the Republicans have any expectation of winning there, or of the SC even accepting the case. And they are fine with that. They just want to use all this to keep alive the idea that Biden was illegitinately elected in order to prevent him from getting anything done. A great group of guys you got there. Political hacks.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...
Not gonna happen. This election is over. Almost every court is laughing the trump team out and you think the supreme court will be different? Why? Are you counting on the activist republican judges to change things the lower courts have dismissed?
 
j brown's body said:
As much as you would like to see SC judges serve as political hacks, which is sad on its own, it is very unlikely the Supreme Court will get involved for 3 reasons: voting is a state matter, no discrimination has been shown, and since overturning the PA vote doesn't change the outcome of the election, the matter is moot. This is why the third string, Giuliani and Powell, are involved, and not highly qualified lawyers. They all know better.

I don't think the Republicans have any expectation of winning there, or of the SC even accepting the case. And they are fine with that. They just want to use all this to keep alive the idea that Biden was illegitinately elected in order to prevent him from getting anything done. A great group of guys you got there. Political hacks.
Click to expand...

I don't see any way the Republicans can win either. But it sure was fun having a fighter like the Donald in charge for four years. Middle East peace? Trump negotiated it on his day off. He will be missed.
 
lemmiwinx said:
The Pennsylvania Supremes don't mean squat. Wait 'til it gets to the US Supremes and see how you like it then.
Click to expand...
Care to make a little wager? What exactly is it you think the USSC is going to say? How are they going to rule? Tell us.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Care to make a little wager? What exactly is it you think the USSC is going to say? How are they going to rule? Tell us.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a 5-4 decision for the conservatives with Justice Roberts voting with the liberals. Don't doubt me on this. Trump gets his second term and the union is saved.
 
lemmiwinx said:
I don't see any way the Republicans can win either. But it sure was fun having a fighter like the Donald in charge for four years. Middle East peace? Trump negotiated it on his day off. He will be missed.
Click to expand...

Yes, but did Trump negotiate a peace treaty between Mexico and Canada?
 
exoplanet said:
It's impossible to read the timing of the suit as anything but an amoral, Machiavellian power play because they didn't like the results of the election.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Here is the final paragraph of the judge's concurring opinion:
Having delayed this suit until two elections were conducted under Act 77’s new, no-excuse mail-in voting system, Petitioners—several of whom participated in primary elections under this system without complaint—play a dangerous game at the expense of every Pennsylvania voter. Petitioners waived their opportunity to challenge Act 77 before the election, choosing instead to “lay by and gamble upon receiving a favorable decision of the electorate.” Toney v. White, 488 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians. It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters.12 Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, but did Trump negotiate a peace treaty between Mexico and Canada?
Click to expand...

The only thing keeping migrants from Old Mexico from taking over Canada completely is Trump's border wall.
 
lemmiwinx said:
It's going to be a 5-4 decision for the conservatives with Justice Roberts voting with the liberals. Don't doubt me on this. Trump gets his second term and the union is saved.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't we doubt you on this? I doubt the SC will bother with the case.
 
lemmiwinx said:
It's going to be a 5-4 decision for the conservatives with Justice Roberts voting with the liberals. Don't doubt me on this. Trump gets his second term and the union is saved.
Click to expand...

Even in the incredibly unlikely event they gave Trump PA, that’s not enough electoral votes for him to win.
 
lemmiwinx said:
It's going to be a 5-4 decision for the conservatives with Justice Roberts voting with the liberals. Don't doubt me on this. Trump gets his second term and the union is saved.
Click to expand...
Now tell us what the ruling will be. Are they going to rule that Pennsylvania's no-excuse absentee ballots are unconstitutional? Are they going to rule that literally thousands of Pennsylvania voters are to be disenfranchised because those voters followed the law? Do you think that will be the result of a 5-4 vote in the USSC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom