If it is possible, take off your partisan hats and consider the possible considerations of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruling.
Some of the, seemingly incontrovertible, facts are;
The state's Constitution puts the power of mandating their state's election rules solely and completely in the hands of the state's legislature.
The laws of that legislature clearly say that for a vote to be considered valid it must be received by the close of polls on election day.
But . . . due to the Covid-19 virus the Democrat party sued and the state's Supreme Court extended the deadline for counting received ballots by 3 days—until Friday 11/6/20,and also removed the Green Party candidate, which in past elections had received about 50,000 votes, (typically drawing votes away from Democrat candidates).
The case challenge is that the state Supreme Court ruling abrogated and usurped the prerogative lawmaking power of the state's Legislature.
My non-legal view is that this is a strong case that may invalidate any ballot received after 11/3. I think the court did overstep its bounds, but, I don't know if there is any legal mitigations, due to Covid, that would validate the court's actions.
What do you think?
Not going to write a comment that ultimately could be a book... LOL
In my view, I think if Trump gets even his little toe before the US Supreme Court, he will set a precedent, and most likely our Constitution will speak loudly in his favor. Now, this is where I think Trump could sneak in the back door of the Supreme Court --
The case closest to being resolved by the Supreme Court is the Pennsylvania dispute in which Republicans are challenging a September ruling by Pennsylvania’s top court which allowed mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days later to be counted.
Although the Supreme Court previously declined to fast-track the appeal by Republicans, three conservative justices left open the possibility of taking up the case again AFTER Election Day.
Yes, it would be unfortunate for the citizens that votes could be disregarded if arriving after Nov,3. The SC could rule ballots received after Nov, 3 null and void. The SC will rule on the Constitution. The Constitution is on Trump’s side. The Constitution states — not once but twice — that state legislatures decide “the time, place and manner of elections.” Governors, commissions, and local judges have no authority to go around state lawmakers.
Trump's main complaint -- Mid-morning on Nov. 4, Trump vowed to seek a Supreme Court ruling on which ballots are being counted. When he said it, the left erupted in outrage.
As you see he does not mention fraud in his outrage... only which ballots should be counted.
It well seems no one is reporting this complaint, I find it the only one that clearly sticks out. Trump has the Constitution on his side.
I agree and the Democrats in Philadelphia made a mockery of their counting process, not to mention Pennsylvania's mailing of 25,000 mail-in ballots to assisted living center patients, and the inorginately slow countig process itself.
I agree, this challenge is not one related to fraud, and if the facts presented to the public are the true facts, I think you are right, the Constitution is on Pres. Trump;'s side.
PA alone will not change the outcome.
What of AZ, GA, etc?
I imagine we will see some recounts I noted this morning Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Wednesday ordered the state’s counties to recount by hand all votes cast in the presidential race. Democrat Joe Biden led President Donald Trump by a little more than 14,000. It will be interesting to see if any fraud will be noted, and ballots removed. This most certainly will snowball into the other states that Trump feels fraud occurred will be forced to hand recount. Will Trump get a Miracle? Plus, If Trump wins it could set the precedent and bring and bring more cohesiveness to how mail-in voting is handled.
At this point, I am just wondering about PA because it doesn't require any type of speculation or partisan positioning. It appears to be just a clear legal determination. A black and white issue with no gray to invite taking a side.
So I will wait to see what happens in your "etc." states because I don't know what is an accusation and what is a fact.
One hour ago --- "Pennsylvania court: Secretary of state lacked authority to change deadline 2 days before Election Day. A judge ruled ballots that were previously set aside should not be counted. A Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of the Trump campaign Thursday, ordering that the state may not count ballots where the voters needed to provide proof of identification and failed to do so by Nov. 9.
State law said that voters have until six days after the election — this year that was Nov. 9 — to cure problems regarding a lack of proof of identification. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots could be accepted three days after Election Day, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar submitted guidance that said proof of identification could be provided up until Nov. 12, which is six days from the ballot acceptance deadline. That guidance was issued two days before Election Day.
The Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt said in a court order.
This was in line with the Trump campaign’s argument, which was that there was no basis in the state’s law to extend the identification deadline and that Boockvar did not have the power to unilaterally change it.
The court had previously ordered that all ballots where voters provided proof of identification between Nov. 10 and 12 should be segregated until a ruling was issued determining what should be done with them.
Today, Leavitt ruled that those ballots shall not be counted.
This is one of several legal challenges the Trump campaign is bringing in Pennsylvania. On Friday they are scheduled to have a hearing over thousands of ballots that they claim were improperly counted despite lacking required information. Additionally, the campaign awaits action from the Supreme Court regarding whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted properly in granting the three-day extension for accepting mail-in ballots."
The Constitution is very clear that election law is set by the state legislature. Tomorrow's suit will hopefully go in favor of the Trump administration as well for exactly that same reason. Bureaucrats and courts have no authority to change electoral law while votes are coming in without legislative approval. This ruling is not about Trump at all, it's about the rule of law and the need to have free and fair elections from this point on.
Fox is the only media outlet reporting the court decision as of yet. Will be very interesting to see if any of the popular outlets report a very important court decision. Trump one step closer to being heard in the Supreme Court. Trump is "pushing back". Do you feel his pushback with various lawsuits claiming voter fraud and irregularities is necessary to protect our rule of law?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsy … d-deadline
I hope that last question was a rhetorical one.
Well, I was using the art of rhetoric as a means of persuasion, hoping to persuade you to answer the question. Straight up... Is push back appropriate to point out and protect our laws? Many see Trump's accusations of voter fraud and his multiple lawsuits as payback. It seems like yesterday we were hashing about the nuance of payback and push back. LOL
I see Trump's actions as push back. He promised to drain the swamp, be transparent. It well appears he is ready to point out that many laws are broken and bent in our elections.
A much larger concern, for me, is that the people who voted by mail did so in good faith. They expected their vote to count. Is it fair that those people, who voted in good faith, should be denied their vote throug no fault of their own?
Note that I'm not addressing voter fraud. By all means, let's punish people who voted fraudulently. But this lawsuit is proposing to punish good people who followed the instructions given by their state in good faith. That doesn't sound like democracy in action.
I agree with your thought about the 'good faith' of the voters who voted by mail. And I agree that Covid-19 nhas introduced extraordinary circumstances and that the 3-day extension is a reasonable accommodation for postal delivery delays.
But, those agreements are secondary to the question of law. Even if the Court's best intentions were for the voters and a legitimate election, if their ruling is ruled invalid, then the law demands that those post-election day ballots must be discounted.
I can see both sides, but I must root for the rule of law, and not Court legislation.
Then the law is an ass, but that has been observed before.
Not so. We have a history of watching our judges render verdicts based on personal, political bias...and it has never been right. We don't give that power to judges (to make laws that the judge likes); that task is reserved to the legislature without any concern at all as to a judges personal likes or dislikes.
And that is as it should be. If the governor, or other political figure, or a politically biased judge, decides they don't like a law they must obtain the consent of the entire legislature to change it - they do not, and should not, have the authority to unilaterally decide that some laws are "wrong" and should not be observed.
Yes, we have seen that before. Thankfully we have the tools to change "ass" laws, but until those laws are changed, they are laws and we are a nation of laws.
Pretty much my idea as well; the law trumps even the best of intentions.
I think this will fester along for a few more weeks, and by the New Year it will have exhausted itself and Trump will accept the "outcome" of the election.
Despite the point you have made, despite any affidavits or videos or ballots accepted from the deceased or verified votes in the tens of thousands switched by computer "error" this election will go to Biden, the courts will not change the result, even if it fast tracks to the Supreme Court.
There is only one major issue left on the National Stage to be decided, and it will have more impact on the next 2+ years than anything else.
What happens to the two GA run-off Senate seats. If they go to the Democrats, the Democrats will have control of Congress and the Presidency and will be able to do whatever they like.
Much like they did in 2008 with the ACA.
However, after four years of Trump, including two years where the Republicans controlled all three, I don't think they will be so frivolous with their opportunity, nor do I think they will be deluded into thinking they will never relinquish control back (as they somehow believed back then).
I think they will be far more ruthless doing everything within their power to ensure they do not lose control of DC again (they took their advantage for granted in 2008), they will be focused, they will be angry, and they will work to destroy the opposition, not defeat it.
But what do you think about the Pennsylvania question?
They changed the rules on mail in voting... to go by when it was postmarked and even when that cannot be discerned that does not discount the ballot.
There was no valid reason to do this, simply have a date where the ballots have to be in BEFORE election day, like Florida and other states have done.
This decision to allow mail-in ballots to be counted days after the election opens the door for fraud and makes the count suspect, nothing more.
As for the legal aspect of it, I would say that the State Supreme Court did overstep their authority, that their decision could also be considered biased for the Democratic Party which brought the suit and benefited from the decision in this election.
But I don't think it will come to anything, I think we are set on a course for a Biden Presidency and a Democrat controlled Congress, and nothing will be allowed to get in the way. Not the Law, not the Constitution.
I also don't think the national election result will change if there is a change in Pennsylvania's election results, but I do think the Pennsylvania court ruling was wrong by law, (I can agree that in such extraordinary circumstances the 3-day extension is reasonable). And the law is the point that should be judged.
by pmccray 12 years ago
I like to read the opinion of my fellow hubbers regarding the ruling struck down by the Supreme Court today. It seems that the all Republican appointees struck down a ruling regarding regulation of corporations' influence on election and public policy. Bottom line; Huge corporations...
by leeberttea 12 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is huge and if the cour rules as I suspect will be an affirmation of liberty as the...
by Readmikenow 23 months ago
Texas Files Multi-State Election Lawsuit, Ensuring That Fraud Is Heard By SCOTUS NowOn Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.Texas brought a suit against four states...
by Sharlee 23 months ago
Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know."By Tom Hals(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a Colorado cake baker who refused to make a...
by ptosis 8 years ago
DO YOU AGREE WITH TODAY"S USSC DECISION? Or are you pissed off and a bit scared as to what happened today?http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx … 2-7822.htmFernandez v. California, U.S. Supreme Court, 12-7822.GINSBURG,J.,dissenting opinionThe warrant requirement, Justice Jackson...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|