Why Pennsylvania will go Red (IMO)

[Kenny]

Pennsylvania is an interesting case and, IMV, will ultimately have the legislators dictate the electorate and here is why,

There is a Pennsylvania law that was enacted a year ago, called Act 77. which basically says Pennsylvanians can vote by mail without any excuse. In other words, carte blanche on mail voting.

However, the Constitution of Pennsylvania says, basically, that absentee Ballots can only be submitted by those who cannot go to polling locations due to a wok obligation (verified), sickness (with a doctors notice), religious holiday or election day duties.

So a lawsuit was presented on the basis of it violating the Constitution of Pennsylvania which takes precedent and overrides any law (just as the Constitution of the US would do the same if a law violated the Constitution.)

In the presentation of the lawsuit, Judge Patricia Mccollough rightfully blocked the certification of the votes. As she put it...

Obviously, it would be contested by the Democrats--and they did just that as they took it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It would be expected that they would reverse the order in as much as the Penn. Supreme Court has 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Indeed, that was the vote - partisan line. (I call it legislating from the bench.)

Most media outlets will then say "LAWSUIT OVERRULED AND KILLED". However, that would NOT be the case.

Like in the lower court where the Dems took it to the next level, so will the Republicans respond in the same way and have it go to the 3rd District of Court of Appeals... where they will be more to the letter of the law. The response will be very clear in as much as the Pennsylvania Constitution will hold precedent when any law contradicts it.

So, the end result will the be legislators declaring the electorate which will end up being for Trump.

 

[ecco]

It would be expected that they would reverse the order in as much as the Penn. Supreme Court has 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Indeed, that was the vote - partisan line. (I call it legislating from the bench.)

Pennsylvania high court tosses lawmaker’s petition to halt election certification

Pennsylvania high court tosses lawmaker’s petition to halt election certification
The seven-member court unanimously agreed that the effort to halt the election results came too late.​

Do you understand the meaning of the word "unanimously"? It does not mean "Indeed, that was the vote - partisan line" as you stated.

Why do you think the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will rule differently on this case than it did on a previous Trump case?

In Harsh Rebuke, Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Election Challenge in Pennsylvania

In a blistering decision, a Philadelphia appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump campaign could not stop — or attempt to reverse — the certification of the voting results in Pennsylvania, reprimanding the president’s team by noting that “calling an election unfair does not make it so.”

The 21-page ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was a complete repudiation of Mr. Trump’s legal effort to halt Pennsylvania’s certification process and was written by a judge that he himself appointed to the bench. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote on behalf of the appeals court in a unanimous decision. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”​

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” the court declared at one point. “Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.”​

 

[exchemist]

Quite delusional - and undemocratic. There is not a cat in hell's chance of this result being overturned.

 

[metis]

Personally, I support democracy, thus not fascism.

 

[Kenny]

Pennsylvania high court tosses lawmaker’s petition to halt election certification

Pennsylvania high court tosses lawmaker’s petition to halt election certification
The seven-member court unanimously agreed that the effort to halt the election results came too late.​

Do you understand the meaning of the word "unanimously"? It does not mean "Indeed, that was the vote - partisan line" as you stated.

Why do you think the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will rule differently on this case than it did on a previous Trump case?

In Harsh Rebuke, Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Election Challenge in Pennsylvania

In a blistering decision, a Philadelphia appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump campaign could not stop — or attempt to reverse — the certification of the voting results in Pennsylvania, reprimanding the president’s team by noting that “calling an election unfair does not make it so.”

The 21-page ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was a complete repudiation of Mr. Trump’s legal effort to halt Pennsylvania’s certification process and was written by a judge that he himself appointed to the bench. “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote on behalf of the appeals court in a unanimous decision. “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”​

“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” the court declared at one point. “Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.”​

My apologies....

the correct quote is "Two members of the court, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justice Sallie Mundy, said Kelly and the GOP contingent should be allowed to pursue their argument that the state constitution bars the sort of widespread mail-in voting used this year."

Not that they voted that way but they agreed that their argument should be allowed and it will at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[sun rise]

Yawn.

Trump lost.

What happens in the future is unknown.