ADVERTISEMENT

Question: Will SCOTUS Take the Pa Third Circuit Case Up and on What Merits?

gator1776

Ring of Honor
Gold Member
Jan 19, 2011
42,570
74,713
113
Not being a lawyer, I am curious as, naturally, have heard from hard left liberals that they have no standing to take the case.
 
If they do this would be the third time they overruled that same lower circuit court this year.

Word is Alito is not impressed with their work.

Their argument was odd - basically said that you needed to take up the constitutionality of the mail in votes (and how the rule was passed) before the election - not after. But there was technically not any ‘injury’ to argue until the actual act of including mail in ballots happened. So it would have been likely thrown out then too.

I think SCOTUS takes it up, and there’s a good chance reverses it. I also think courts would MUCH rather the states work this out - invalidating votes is a lose/lose for a judge.
 
If they do this would be the third time they overruled that same lower circuit court this year.

Word is Alito is not impressed with their work.

Their argument was odd - basically said that you needed to take up the constitutionality of the mail in votes (and how the rule was passed) before the election - not after. But there was technically not any ‘injury’ to argue until the actual act of including mail in ballots happened. So it would have been likely thrown out then too.

I think SCOTUS takes it up, and there’s a good chance reverses it. I also think courts would MUCH rather the states work this out - invalidating votes is a lose/lose for a judge.

Agree with you, but big issues like this are exactly why we have the supremes. IMO
 
Last edited:
Agree with ypu, but big issues like this are exactly why we have the supremes. IMO
I agree with both of you but it’s amazing listening to some liberal lawyers talk about how this is a state issue and they have no jurisdiction. But clearly the constitution delineates how the president is elected so you would think they would have jurisdiction.

Constantly amazed that people hate orange man so much that they’re willing to accept a fraudulent election just to win. To hell with the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
I agree with both of you but it’s amazing listening to some liberal lawyers talk about how this is a state issue and they have no jurisdiction. But clearly the constitution delineates how the president is elected so you would think they would have jurisdiction.

Constantly amazed that people hate orange man so much that they’re willing to except a fraudulent election just to win. To hell with the will of the people.
Thats because they need it to be a state issue which is ironic coming from big government worshippers.
 
Thats because they need it to be a state issue which is ironic coming from big government worshippers.
When shit hits the fan in federal elections, safeguards need to be in place from phucking the rest of the nation with regard to their local and state voter fraud. It matters, and that is exactly why the SCOTUS has to weigh in on these matters. I have zero phucks to give if they want to run their cities like banana republics, but when it affects the entire nation, these phucktards need to be reigned in.
 
Article 2 says legislatures set rules. If that is subverted then those votes are unconstitutional.

Article 4 requires a real republican form of government not a banana republic. So if locals aka Gov. SOS AG fail to follow article 2 they are failing to provide their constituents said government. THIS IS NOT A PURE DEMOCRACY but a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

14th amendment requires equal treatment and not different voting rules for different parts of the State.

What other court is the final arbiter of CONSTITUTIONAL questions? SCOTUS of course.
 
14th amendment requires equal treatment and not different voting rules for different parts of the State.

This argument makes me laugh.

The rules were the same, the interpretation was different. Some districts chose to help people who turned in insufficient ballots, others (Republican districts trying to suppress the mail in votes to help the Trumpster) chose to not help.

So your argument is that, because some districts chose to disenfranchise voters, all districts have to disenfranchise voters? Too funny.

But, let's buy your logic that the 14th is in play. Now, people have a right to vote. The proper role of government is to facilitate people receiving their rights, not to block them. So how about the court sanction the districts that chose to not assist voters to fill out their forms correctly, as THEY were the ones to violate the 14th? Hmm?

I know you will hate this argument. Too much logic.
 
This argument makes me laugh.

The rules were the same, the interpretation was different. Some districts chose to help people who turned in insufficient ballots, others (Republican districts trying to suppress the mail in votes to help the Trumpster) chose to not help.

So your argument is that, because some districts chose to disenfranchise voters, all districts have to disenfranchise voters? Too funny.

But, let's buy your logic that the 14th is in play. Now, people have a right to vote. The proper role of government is to facilitate people receiving their rights, not to block them. So how about the court sanction the districts that chose to not assist voters to fill out their forms correctly, as THEY were the ones to violate the 14th? Hmm?

I know you will hate this argument. Too much logic.

Of course it makes you laugh. You support illegal voting, so I can imagine anyone wanting fair and honest elections is amusing to you.
 
This argument makes me laugh.

The rules were the same, the interpretation was different. Some districts chose to help people who turned in insufficient ballots, others (Republican districts trying to suppress the mail in votes to help the Trumpster) chose to not help.

So your argument is that, because some districts chose to disenfranchise voters, all districts have to disenfranchise voters? Too funny.

But, let's buy your logic that the 14th is in play. Now, people have a right to vote. The proper role of government is to facilitate people receiving their rights, not to block them. So how about the court sanction the districts that chose to not assist voters to fill out their forms correctly, as THEY were the ones to violate the 14th? Hmm?

I know you will hate this argument. Too much logic.
Why are you even here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfegaly
This argument makes me laugh.

The rules were the same, the interpretation was different. Some districts chose to help people who turned in insufficient ballots, others (Republican districts trying to suppress the mail in votes to help the Trumpster) chose to not help.

So your argument is that, because some districts chose to disenfranchise voters, all districts have to disenfranchise voters? Too funny.

But, let's buy your logic that the 14th is in play. Now, people have a right to vote. The proper role of government is to facilitate people receiving their rights, not to block them. So how about the court sanction the districts that chose to not assist voters to fill out their forms correctly, as THEY were the ones to violate the 14th? Hmm?

I know you will hate this argument. Too much logic.
This comment is so comical! Please elaborate on how republicans tried to suppress votes? I heard about a million times how u can request a mail in ballot which is different than mass mail out ballots. How much easier could it be? Lol
Funny how Florida who has I think top 5 in population could do their voting basically perfectly and even with all the old ppl there. Why not adopt the same process Florida did? Voter ID’s too much to handle? Lol oh yeah, then it would be harder to cheat.
oh, also, please explain how legal votes were trying to be blocked. Can’t wait for ur educated responses.
 

In Andy McCarthy’s educated opinion, the Trump campaign’s appeal to SCOTUS is unlikely to succeed.

The interesting legal dynamic I’m curious to watch is the PA legislature’s effort to enforce Republican electors. Stay tuned......


Yeah. I have seen opinions on both sides of this. Going to be interesting
 
  • Like
Reactions: ukalum1988
I think the lower courts do not want to touch this. Alitos prior actions seem to imply he has interest. Will SCOTUS take this particular case up? Dunno. Not sure which case it is but the case that SCOTUS needs to take up is not the one involving the fraud but the constitutional case. That is the one that Alito and SCOTUS needs to take up. That case was thrown out as being filed too late and I think it is different than the on/off again filing about fraud that McCarthy mentioned.

And yes the goal is to throw out wholesale 100s of thousands of unconstitutional votes which would give Trump the win.

Tomorrows session could be critical for Pa. The fraud is obvious when all the stuff is taken in total. Is someone going to stop the steal? SCOTUS and the legislature are on the clock.
 
Some districts chose to help people who turned in insufficient ballots, others (Republican districts trying to suppress the mail in votes to help the Trumpster) chose to not help.

This is the mentality we should expect when we stop keeping score and everyone gets a participation trophy.

Fvcking snowflakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martycat1
Bush V Gore.
and
Curing in PA is unconstitutional violation of legislative statute.
Republicans followed election law and demons did not.

No, it is not. US Constitution does not include legislative voting procedures. Pa. Supreme Court had ruled, prior to the election, that curing would be allowed. It was at the discretion of each county, and some did and some did not.
 
This argument makes me laugh.

The rules were the same, the interpretation was different. Some districts chose to help people who turned in insufficient ballots, others (Republican districts trying to suppress the mail in votes to help the Trumpster) chose to not help.

You're honestly becoming no better than @Nolec or @BSC911 with all your dishonesty.

Democratic areas gave dem voters the opportunity to 'cure' their ballots, but did not give republican voters that same chance.

Which is exactly what voter suppression is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dezyDeco
No, it is not. US Constitution does not include legislative voting procedures. Pa. Supreme Court had ruled, prior to the election, that curing would be allowed. It was at the discretion of each county, and some did and some did not.

They let the dems cure their ballots, and not the republicans.

Voter fraud.
 
They let the dems cure their ballots, and not the republicans.

Voter fraud.

So Pub counties discriminated against Pub voters BECAUSE they had the choice and chose to do it that way. So aren't they saying "we cheated so we want to do it over" Clearly that should compel SCOTUS... not.
 
Let me type slowly. THE PASC does NOT have the right or AUTHORITY to allow or require curing of ballots when it is disallowed by law as it is in Pa.

Article 2 of the US Constitution gives sole authority to set procedure and election law to the legislatures. Any subversion of the legislature by other state entities is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I dont give a d@mn what PASC, SOS, AG, or Governor allowed, ruled, or did.

THEY are not the constitutionally charged body in this case. They have little to no ROLE.

Now let me repeat. THE PASC has NO authority to change election procedures or law. NONE. Constantly referring to them setting some rule before the election that overrides the legislative rules is not a valid argument. It may be allowed to stand but it is still and always will be unconstitutional.

Now whether SCOTUS fixes this or not remains to be seen. AND the PASC is an inferior court to SCOTUS period. If it has violated the legislative procedure it has engaged in unconstitutional activity per article 2 COTUS
 
Last edited:
Let me type slowly. THE PASC does NOT have the right or AUTHORITY to allow or require curing of ballots when it is disallowed by law as it is in Pa.

Article 2 of the US Constitution gives sole authority to set procedure and election law to the legislatures. Any subversion of the legislature by other state entities is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I dont give a d@mn what PASC, SOS, AG, or Governor allowed, ruled, or did.

THEY are not the constitutionally charged body in this case. They have little to no ROLE.

Now let me repeat. THE PASC has NO authority to change election procedures or law. NONE. Constantly referring to them setting some rule before the election that overrides the legislative rules is not a valid argument. It may be allowed to stand but it is still and always will be unconstitutional.

Now whether SCOTUS fixes this or not remains to be seen. AND the PASC is an inferior court to SCOTUS period. If it has violated the legislative procedure it has engaged in unconstitutional activity per article 2 COTUS

The Pa. Legislature was given the time to address this issue after it went to court. They chose not to act on it. So it was utilized.
 
The Pa. Legislature was given the time to address this issue after it went to court. They chose not to act on it. So it was utilized.
And SCOTUS if they choose can invalidate that action at any time they choose to do so. Lastly this did go before SCOTUS BEFORE the election and it resulted in a 4-4 tie due to Ginsburg's death. ACB has been seated and it should IMHO be reviewed especially since a party will be irreparably harmed by such unconstitutional actions POTUS DJT. Curing was one of many violations of Pa election law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfegaly
I think the lower courts do not want to touch this. Alitos prior actions seem to imply he has interest. Will SCOTUS take this particular case up? Dunno. Not sure which case it is but the case that SCOTUS needs to take up is not the one involving the fraud but the constitutional case. That is the one that Alito and SCOTUS needs to take up. That case was thrown out as being filed too late and I think it is different than the on/off again filing about fraud that McCarthy mentioned.

And yes the goal is to throw out wholesale 100s of thousands of unconstitutional votes which would give Trump the win.

Tomorrows session could be critical for Pa. The fraud is obvious when all the stuff is taken in total. Is someone going to stop the steal? SCOTUS and the legislature are on the clock.
Yeah that’s the case I’m talking about, the one where the third circuit said it was thrown out for being filed too late which seems asinine to me. But hey, I ain’t no lawyer
 
  • Like
Reactions: jfegaly
Yeah that’s the case I’m talking about, the one where the third circuit said it was thrown out for being filed too late which seems asinine to me. But hey, I ain’t no lawyer
Well the law and courts in general are asinine. So what can and probably does happen in cases like this is that SCOTUS would narrowly override and say hey we disagree and send it back down to argue the merits. Then the merits are heard and ignored and a new appeal is sent to SCOTUS who hears the merits in this case and then rules that the election laws were violated by PASC and so election was unconstitutional and send it back down for remedy. Mind you everything needs done in a short amount of time.

Its quite infuriating in many ways. If I could reform the courts an appeal to SCOTUS would require the broadest approach to the law/argument to look for any unconstitutionality and its rulings would never be narrow but broad so as to prevent future action on the same d@mn law over and over. It could and would happen but less often.

Under my type of review, instead of this back and forth over minutia, the SCOTUS looks at the ultimate goal that both sides wish to achieve and decide which one has the best argument while considering all facets of the debate. So Trump shows up with ALL of his arguments at one time and SCOTUS reviews all of them and then rules. Instead of sending it back down to the courts it sees article 2 and sends it directly back to the legislature to fix.

It tells them to select the electors or send no one.
 
Let me type slowly. THE PASC does NOT have the right or AUTHORITY to allow or require curing of ballots when it is disallowed by law as it is in Pa.

Article 2 of the US Constitution gives sole authority to set procedure and election law to the legislatures. Any subversion of the legislature by other state entities is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I dont give a d@mn what PASC, SOS, AG, or Governor allowed, ruled, or did.

THEY are not the constitutionally charged body in this case. They have little to no ROLE.

Now let me repeat. THE PASC has NO authority to change election procedures or law. NONE. Constantly referring to them setting some rule before the election that overrides the legislative rules is not a valid argument. It may be allowed to stand but it is still and always will be unconstitutional.

Now whether SCOTUS fixes this or not remains to be seen. AND the PASC is an inferior court to SCOTUS period. If it has violated the legislative procedure it has engaged in unconstitutional activity per article 2 COTUS

I assume you mean this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

If you think this says that state legislatures have absolute authority to do whatever they please with elections, without any check or balance then fine, you do you. Nothing I say is going to get through that noggin of yours anyway.

But let me ask you this: Do you think this means that election laws don't have to be signed by the governor, and that he or she doesn't have the right to veto them? Because if your interpretation is correct, then election laws don't have to go through the normal process.
 
I assume you mean this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

If you think this says that state legislatures have absolute authority to do whatever they please with elections, without any check or balance then fine, you do you. Nothing I say is going to get through that noggin of yours anyway.

But let me ask you this: Do you think this means that election laws don't have to be signed by the governor, and that he or she doesn't have the right to veto them? Because if your interpretation is correct, then election laws don't have to go through the normal process.

Nothing you say when it comes to voting or elections is relevant PERIOD. And you already know why. #counteveryillegal vote. Tell us why your opinion would be relevant after that doozy?
 
Nothing you say when it comes to voting or elections is relevant PERIOD. And you already know why. #counteveryillegal vote. Tell us why your opinion would be relevant after that doozy?

You keep doing you. It's all good!
 
This is the mentality we should expect when we stop keeping score and everyone gets a participation trophy.

Fvcking snowflakes.

So you think a person should be disenfranchised of their vote because they messed up an instruction?

Following that logic, if a person goes to renew their driver's license, and they fail to bring in one of the required documents, then the DMV should just say "sorry, you failed to follow instructions, you don't get to drive any more"? Or perhaps they would say, "here's what else you need to do to follow the instructions and then you will be successful in this effort"? Not sure you realize this, but your voting position is the first option.

Fvcking morons.

Edit: Voting is participation only for the voters. By definition. And pretty sure they do keep score of the votes for the candidates. So your post made absolutely zero sense, although I doubt you can see that.
 
Last edited:
So you think a person should be disenfranchised of their vote because they messed up an instruction?

Following that logic, if a person goes to renew their driver's license, and they fail to bring in one of the required documents, then the DMV should just say "sorry, you failed to follow instructions, you don't get to drive any more"? Or perhaps they would say, "here's what else you need to do to follow the instructions and then you will be successful in this effort"? Not sure you realize this, but your voting position is the first option.

Fvcking morons.

Edit: Voting is participation only for the voters. By definition. And pretty sure they do keep score of the votes for the candidates. So your post made absolutely zero sense, although I doubt you can see that.

I'm not sure where to begin. I am sure that you aren't worth the effort.

I recommend that you go to the DMV without the proper ID and information and see how that works out for you.

As for your edit, I'll wait by my mailbox for my trophy. You should do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blubo
Let me type slowly. THE PASC does NOT have the right or AUTHORITY to allow or require curing of ballots when it is disallowed by law as it is in Pa.

Article 2 of the US Constitution gives sole authority to set procedure and election law to the legislatures. Any subversion of the legislature by other state entities is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I dont give a d@mn what PASC, SOS, AG, or Governor allowed, ruled, or did.

THEY are not the constitutionally charged body in this case. They have little to no ROLE.

Now let me repeat. THE PASC has NO authority to change election procedures or law. NONE. Constantly referring to them setting some rule before the election that overrides the legislative rules is not a valid argument. It may be allowed to stand but it is still and always will be unconstitutional.

Now whether SCOTUS fixes this or not remains to be seen. AND the PASC is an inferior court to SCOTUS period. If it has violated the legislative procedure it has engaged in unconstitutional activity per article 2 COTUS
DC nails it. Where DC fails? He cannot teach pattern recognition. Welcome to the club.
 
And SCOTUS if they choose can invalidate that action at any time they choose to do so. Lastly this did go before SCOTUS BEFORE the election and it resulted in a 4-4 tie due to Ginsburg's death. ACB has been seated and it should IMHO be reviewed especially since a party will be irreparably harmed by such unconstitutional actions POTUS DJT. Curing was one of many violations of Pa election law.

I do not believe SCOTUS will even take up the case. Roberts won't want SCOTUS to be in the political nightmare of SCOTUS sending the ok 4-4 back down to Pa. and then possibly reversing. It would place SCOTUS as the cause of the problem from the first decision.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT