╌>

Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote

  
Via:  Bob Nelson  •  5 years ago  •  16 comments

By:   Adam Liptak - The New York Times

Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote



In a one-sentence order, the court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted

Leave a comment to auto-join group The Beacon

The Beacon


original

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



512 The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn the state's election results. The justices said they would not block a ruling from Pennsylvania's highest court that had rejected a challenge to the use of mail ballots in the state. The Supreme Court's order was all of one sentence, and there were no noted dissents.

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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 years ago

One sentence.

Trump must be... ... unhappy...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     5 years ago
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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2    5 years ago

This is Marxism!

... of the Groucho variety...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
3  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 years ago
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    5 years ago
kUuht00m_bigger.jpg
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
2h
They got caught because we were leading by so much more than they ever thought possible. Late night ballot “dumps” went crazy!
This claim about election fraud is disputed
Quote Tweet
LSGjG1kU_normal.jpg
Major Patriot
@MajorPatriot
· 8h
The wheels are coming off. Trump's inspired massive MAGA tsunami turnout forced them to cheat so big they lost their minds in a fraud frenzy. Their Unconstitutional legal moves alone are dooming them. "I caught the swamp. I caught them all" -- DJT
EouTiEbVgAkus5x?format=jpg&name=small
12.7K
23.9K
80.2K
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @4.2.1    5 years ago

However you need to justify yourself is fine kavika. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.2    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5  Ender    5 years ago

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...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

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

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
6.1  pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6    5 years ago
It’s not over yet.

Over-heard on the deck of the trumptanic.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  pat wilson @6.1    5 years ago

Ha. Yep, the iceberg already hit. It is on the slow sink. At least several were smart enough to go to a lifeboat.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
6.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Ender @6.1.1    5 years ago

Of course being a trump ship there weren't enough life boats, lol.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Ender  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.2    5 years ago

And the band played on...

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Sean Treacy
Igknorantzruls


118 visitors