1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Pennsylvania will go Red (IMO)

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by KenS, Dec 1, 2020.

  1. KenS

    KenS Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    12,735
    Ratings:
    +3,987
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    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...
    Screen Shot 2020-12-01 at 8.27.44 AM.png

    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.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  2. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    12,487
    Ratings:
    +6,163
    Religion:
    atheist
    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.”
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    10,689
    Ratings:
    +9,604
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Quite delusional - and undemocratic. There is not a cat in hell's chance of this result being overturned. :rolleyes:
     
  4. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    33,234
    Ratings:
    +15,389
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Personally, I support democracy, thus not fascism.
     
  5. KenS

    KenS Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    12,735
    Ratings:
    +3,987
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    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.
     
  6. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    54,360
    Ratings:
    +24,171
    Religion:
    Love
    Yawn.

    Trump lost.

    What happens in the future is unknown.
     
Loading...