SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Pennyslavania to Reclaim Power from Sec of State to Appoint Electors

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan here is the ruling which has now gone to the PA Supreme Court and has been tossed but totally as expected.Judge McCullough is of the opinion that this case is likely to succeed when it goes further up to circuit or US Surpreme court.Based on act 77 being unconstitutional and also they didnt follow the rules on who could send in a mail in ballot.For instance you couldnt send in a mail in ballot because you were afraid of covid it had to be that you were sick from covid and it had to be documented .

Judge rules pro-Trump case established a ‘likelihood to succeed on the merits’ in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania appellate court judge who issued a temporary injunction Wednesday against the state certifying its 2020 election results released an accompanying opinion Friday explaining her decision.

In the opinion, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough predicted that the plaintiffs in the case will ultimately win the battle they’re waging in the Keystone State.



“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” she wrote.

“Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene [a provision in the state’s Constitution] as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77.”


13 For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing s/ Patricia A. McCullough PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

urs staff

 2020/11/29 7:21Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

The McCullough heard case will not go to any Circuit Court. The PA Supreme Court reversed it. The only possible next step is to seek cert to the SCOTUS. I continue to maintain that it is unlikely they will take that case, either.


_________________
Tim

 2020/11/29 9:29Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan,
I actually said that in my previous post that the PA supreme court reversed it which was totally expected.


"In its ruling on Saturday, the state Supreme Court, composed of five Democrats and two Republicans, vacated McCullough's order"

This case has total and complete merits and was only tossed because of the make up of the court nothing to do with merits.
This will be heard further up as its an open and shut constitiutional issue .The constitution is very clear act 77 is unconstitutional .
Also it may not even be needed to be heard if as its looking that the PA Legislature will take back the control of the electors hopefully by midweek ,
Despite what your saying the constitution is the big dog in the room here not lower court liberal judges ,
urs staff

 2020/11/29 11:27Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

Staff,

The PA case, according to the Trump appointed judge on the 3rd Circuit, presented no federal constitutional issues and was based solely in state law. If that is so, SCOTUS will not touch it.

If there IS a federal question in the PA lawsuit but it cannot demonstrate that it will make a difference in the outcome in PA, they won't touch it.

As far as the PA legislature taking back the certification of electors, they have to pass a bill that gets signed by the Dem governor. The PA GOP speaker of the house said late last night they will not move forward with the effort. Not gonna happen.


_________________
Tim

 2020/11/29 15:43Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan,
Of course their is a federal question in the lawsuit.Which is can a judge change the law of a state which they clearly did.
Only the legislature can change the law of a state so this is matter for the Scotus .Alito stepped in PA on the same issue.The state said it could count votes after election day based on state law and Alito said no that it was unconstitutional .Alito is showing no signs of not "wanting not to touch it".
Its up to the legislature of each state to precribe the "mannner and time " of the election not the AG or any judge.
Because the law was not changed threw the legislature then act 77 is unconstitutional .Its fairly clear I think.
My understanding is that the bill to claim back electors is still going ahead but we will wait and see,urs staff

 2020/11/29 16:34Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

Staff,

Alito has done nothing. Where on Earth do you keep pulling Justice Alito into this? He hasn't touched it. He has no reason to, not has he any power to. I just for the life of me cannot figure where you get this from. Please provide some link to this.

Whether PA judges have acted in a way to "change the law" in violation of PA law is NOT a federal question and not something the US Supreme Court will address.

Act 77 is an Act. Of. The. Legislature. You said expressly that Act 77 wasn't passed through the Legislature. Yes, it was. A Republican Legislature at that. And legislaures are the only bodies that pass "acts".

Even the plaintiff in the PA case, Sean Parnell, about his appeal to SCOTUS, has said that there are "federal questions nested in there". What are they? Why was the case not brought in Federal court instead? His whole theory is that PA constitutional processes were not followed to pass Act 77, not that it was passed by some non-legislative means. It is fully based in state law. He is hoping someone can now dig out of it a federal law issue. The Court won't do it for him.


_________________
Tim

 2020/11/29 17:41Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan,
Alito got involved in the PA election by telling PA that they couldnt count ballots that came in after election day.

https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/justice-alito-orders-pennsylvania-officials-divide-late-ballots/

My point on Alito is that he is clearly ready and willing and able to get involved.These ballots had to be seperated and Supreme court judges were willing to get involved.

Act 77 is not an act of the legislature as the act was not completed and because the process was not completed but only started then it is unconstitutional .The act had to fully be voted on and passed correctly and it wasnt.
Judge McCullough does not agree at all with your assesement,
urs staff

 2020/11/29 18:32Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Again ,
Here is an interview with Alan Dershowitz a democrat lawyer.
He's indefinite on what will be the outcome and said their no precedent .He said that if he was asked for his judgement he said he thinks it wont work based on time ,the courts and what he says is allegations not evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVNwvZZv8Hc

They will vote on the resolution in PA scheduled to be voted on Monday 30th
The resolution is sponsored by Rep. Russ Diamond, Rep. Eric R. Nelson, Rep. Paul Schemel, Rep. Greg Rothman, Rep. Francis X. Ryan, Rep. Dawn W. Keefer, Rep. Mike Jones, Rep. David H. Rowe, Rep. Michael J. Puskaric, Rep. Barbara Gleim, Rep. Bud Cook, Rep. Cris Dush, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, Rep. David H. Zimmerman, Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe, Rep. David M. Maloney, Sr., Rep. Dan Moul, Rep. Brad Roae, Rep. Kathy L. Rapp, Rep. Jim Cox, Rep. Rob W. Kauffman, Rep. Matthew Dowling, Rep. Eric Davanzo, Rep. Rich Irvin, Aaron Berstine and Rep. Andrew Lewis.

The resolution has not yet been voted on by either the state House or Senate. It is not expected to get a vote before lawmakers’ terms end on Monday.

ur staff


 2020/11/29 20:34Profile
dolfan
Member



Joined: 2011/8/23
Posts: 1672
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama

 Re:

Alito has not been individually involved in anything regarding the validity of Act 77.

He did, as I explained last week about SCOTUS justices and temporary emergency relief, issue an order requiring Pennsylvania to segregate absentee ballots from all other ballots. That was done the weekend following election day. Pennsylvania was already segregating those ballots. Alito's order was issued at the request of the Pennsylvania Republican party. At that time, and as we sit here this morning on November 30th, a cert petition was and is pending asking the court to consider whether to take up the question whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of the deadline to receive and count mail-in ballots violated the United States constitution's provision that state legislators direct the selection of electors and the time place and manner for congressional elections.

It is quite clear that the only ballots to be disputed in all of this are the ones mailed in and received after election day. Only 10,000, maybe a few more, were received after election day. All other mail-in ballots were received on or before election day. Pennsylvania's cast 2.6 million mail in ballots in this election cycle.

Nothing about the way the deadline was extended had any real impact on the outcome of Pennsylvania's vote count for President. In other words, even if cert is granted on the petition that was filed before the election then the only relief available is to invalidate votes received after election day and there are simply nowhere near enough to make a difference.

1. Alito has made no ruling on any part of the substantive case, and his temporary limited involvement was only to make sure that Pennsylvania segregated mail and balance, which they had already done prior to his order

2. The case before the SCOTUS now has nothing to do with whether Act 77 is constitutional. It only asks the United States Supreme Court to invalidate the count of mail-in ballots received after election day and the only reason it asks that is because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline in a way that the petitioners argue violated the authority of state legislatures to direct the manner of choosing Electors for president under the United States constitution.

3. Only roughly 10, 000 mail in ballots were received after election day in Pennsylvania.

4. Even if the court grants certiorari and rules with the petitioners the only remedy available would be to set aside the 10,000 mail-in ballots received after election day.


_________________
Tim

 2020/11/30 9:12Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1757


 Re:

Hi Dolfan ,
Nobody said that he did and I went out of my way twice to point out that he Alito wasnt afraid to get involved and I clearly made that point in response to your assertion that the Supreme court "wont touch"an election case.

urs staff

 2020/11/30 14:36Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy