Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote
By: Adam Liptak - The New York Times
In a one-sentence order, the court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted
Now we know that the Court won't go full crazy to save Trump.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A "Stop the Steal" rally on Tuesday outside the Supreme Court
Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
The request that the Supreme Court intercede had faced substantial legal hurdles, as it was filed long after the enactment of the challenged statute that allowed mailed ballots and was based on questions of state rather than federal law.
In late November, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, led by Representative Mike Kelly, a Republican, on the first ground, saying they could have challenged a 2019 law allowing vote by mail for any reason more than a year ago.
"At the time this action was filed on Nov. 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election," the court said. "Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners' failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters."
The plaintiffs had asked the state court to nullify mailed ballots after the fact or to direct the State Legislature to pick Pennsylvania's electors.
The filing in the U.S. Supreme Court sought an order telling state officials not to take further actions to certify the vote in Pennsylvania or "to nullify any such actions already taken" while the plaintiffs pursued an appeal. The request was directed to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the member of the court responsible for emergency applications concerning rulings in the state.
The filing took issue with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of state law. The U.S. Supreme Court does not ordinarily second-guess such rulings.
In urging the justices not to intercede, lawyers for the state said the Republicans' requests were "an affront to constitutional democracy."
"Petitioners ask this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic," they wrote. "No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor's certification of presidential election results."
They said there were four flaws in the challengers' arguments. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the challengers said the state law was at odds with federal constitutional provisions governing elections. But they had not squarely made that argument in their main filings in the state courts, and the Supreme Court does not ordinarily decide questions not first decided by a lower court.
Moreover, lawyers for the state wrote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision turned on a question of state law. That "adequate and independent state-law ground" for the decision, they wrote, bars U.S. Supreme Court review.
They added that the challengers had not suffered the sort of concrete injury that would give them standing to sue and that the 2019 law was not at odds with the state Constitution.
In any event, lawyers for the state wrote, the matter is largely moot, as the state's election results in favor of Joseph R. Biden Jr. have been certified and submitted. The challengers' remaining argument, they wrote, is that the Supreme Court should simply overturn the state's election results. That request, they wrote, was breathtaking and unconstitutional.
Tags
Who is online
118 visitors
One sentence.
Trump must be... ... unhappy...
I'm sure that he is and after Ted Cruz rant before the decision, I'm sure that both of them are very unhappy.
I'm waiting for Trump to attack SCOTUS...LOLOL that will be a hoot.
Perhaps Trump can con more money out of his super lemmings for more money to fight the SCOTUS decision. Rudy Four Seasons can lead the charge.
This is Marxism!
... of the Groucho variety...
Wow... the progressives here must be shocked. They assured us democracy was ended and Coney Barrett was going to lead some sort of coup in exchange for being nominated.
Time to Move onto the next conspiracy...
Trump tweeted something earlier today that had Amy Coney Barrett with beams of light shooting out of her eyes. I guess that was supposed to mean she was on his side.
You should direct your observations to Trump, he is the one who is detached from reality.
I would say the biggest conspiracy theory belongs to Trump and his super lemming followers.
But hey, ''Look Squirrel'' works for some on the right.
However you need to justify yourself is fine kavika.
I have no need to justify myself, Sean. It seems that you're the one that needs to justify himself but you'll have to get that Squirrel under control before you can move on.
Cheers
Hey justices, do me a favor and overturn the election results so I can have a win...
Justices: This isn't even a coherent lawsuit...
It’s not over yet.
Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, & South Dakota have all announced that they will be joining Texas in the suit
— Sam (@SunshineSt8Sam) December 8, 2020
Over-heard on the deck of the trumptanic.
Ha. Yep, the iceberg already hit. It is on the slow sink. At least several were smart enough to go to a lifeboat.
Of course being a trump ship there weren't enough life boats, lol.
And the band played on...