mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-11-28, 02:40   #551
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

921510 Posts
Default

Judges have been quite clear on their rulings and their wording has delivered the message: "We've had about enough of this malarkey."
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-28, 03:14   #552
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

41·151 Posts
Default

The next step is the Supreme Court. It should be 9-0 in favor of the defendants, but I would not be surprised if Kavanaugh dissents. He seems to be the most willing to overrule lower courts on election cases.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-28, 03:42   #553
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

7×599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
The next step is the Supreme Court. It should be 9-0 in favor of the defendants, but I would not be surprised if Kavanaugh dissents. He seems to be the most willing to overrule lower courts on election cases.
My guess is, the Supremes will refuse to take it.

There is another case -- a real case they may well take, and which IMO the Plaintiffs stand a very good chance of winning. It's the one the Supremes didn't take earlier on a 4-4 tie vote, but which, it was pointed out at that time, they might well look at after the election.

It is now a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the case of JIM BOGNET, et al. v. KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al. This is a challenge against the 3-day extension to the arrival of mail-in ballots. The challenge is based on the fact that the Constitution vests the power to set election rules in State Legislatures, granting Congress the power to write nationwide rules.

The arrival deadline for mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania was set by law as Election Day. The 3-day extension in this year's election was not set by law. The challenge claims that the extension was therefore not legally authorized, so the ballots that arrived after Election Day shouldn't be counted.

EDIT: As far as I can tell, the number of late-arriving ballots is only about 10,000, which is not enough to affect the outcome in the presidential election.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2020-11-28 at 03:54 Reason: As indicated
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-28, 17:31   #554
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5×19×97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Judges have been quite clear on their rulings and their wording has delivered the message: "We've had about enough of this malarkey."
I just read that the judge that handed down the ruling in Pennsylvania was..... appointed by Trump
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-28, 21:27   #555
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

41×151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
I just read that the judge that handed down the ruling in Pennsylvania was..... appointed by Trump
Yup and the other two were appointed by Bush II.

26 PA legislators want to nix certification.

It should concern Americans that so many Republicans refuse to believe that this election wan't marred by massive voter fraud. Trump now wants Biden to prove that 80m people voted for him. I would turn this on its head. Trump should prove that 74m people voted for him.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-29, 00:05   #556
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

7·599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
I just read that the judge that handed down the ruling in Pennsylvania was..... appointed by Trump
My post about the ruling (entitled Ouch!) did give the year Judge Bibas was appointed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
Yup and the other two were appointed by Bush II.
Ah, good, I hadn't checked. Your observation also prodded me to remedy my failure to mention in my post about the ruling, that it was unanimous.Interesting, in view of what the R-legislative leaders were saying not too long ago... (Google Google dig dig)

A UPI article explaining that they are cosponsoring a Resolution, is here. It says the R-leaders are sticking with their previously-stated position:
Quote:
But other Pennsylvanian Republican politicians distanced themselves from the resolution. A spokesman for Republican Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler said that he was not involved in the resolution. And a spokesman for Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff said caucus leaders would stand by the popular vote winner in the presidential election being assigned electors.
The bull resolution is here. It has a list of the 26 traitors cosponsors, for ease of reference.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2020-11-29 at 00:40 Reason: Add quotes from another post, and responses thereto
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-29, 01:20   #557
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

100100110000102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
It has a list of the 26 traitors cosponsors, for ease of reference.
The wonderful thing, at least to me, is I truly don't care.

At the end of the day, I pull my head up from my console, look around and find that Bimshire hasn't been nuked by anyone, and then I go up for dinner.

Quality time with SWMBO and kittens, and then sleeps.

Rince and repeat...
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-29, 02:23   #558
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

7×599 Posts
Default Case dismissed

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court has thrown out the action that resulted in Judge McCullough's injunction halting certification:
Quote:
ORDER


PER CURIAM
AND NOW
, this 28th day of November, 2020, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726,1 we GRANT the application for extraordinary jurisdiction filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar ("Commonwealth"), VACATE the Commonwealth Court's order preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election, and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the petition for review filed by the Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, and Wanda Logan ("Petitioners"). All other outstanding motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

--- footnote ---

1 Section 726 provides that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the Supreme Court may, on its own motion or upon petition of any party, in any matter pending before any court or magisterial district judge of this Commonwealth involving an issue of immediate public importance, assume plenary jurisdiction of such matter at any stage thereof and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done." 42 Pa.C.S. § 726.
Since Respondents did not ask the Court to rule on the constitutionality of 2019 Act 77, (and because some of the court filings indicate the narrow interpretation is supported by precedent) it would appear that my interpretation of Article VII, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution given here was completely wrong.
My apologies to Judge McCullough.

Rather, Respondents pleaded and the Court ruled that the complaint was barred by the "doctrine of laches" or unreasonable delay. In the Concurring Statement by Justice Wech we see
Quote:
A respondent who resorts to laches must establish two elements: First, the party must demonstrate a lack of diligence on behalf of the claimant. In that regard, "[t]he test is not what the plaintiff knows, but what he might have known by the use of the means of information within his reach with the vigilance the law requires of him." Taylor v. Coggins, 90 A. 633, 635 (Pa. 1914). Second, the respondent must show an "injury or material prejudice" resulting from that delay. Gabster v. Mesaros, 220 A.2d 639, 641 (Pa. 1966).
<snip>
Respondents' recitations lay bare Petitioners' want of diligence in this case. Petitioners could have brought this action at any time between October 31, 2019, when Governor Wolf signed Act 77 into law, and April 28, 2020, when this Court still retained exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to it. See Act 77 § 13(2)-(3). The claims then could have been adjudicated finally before the June primary, when no-excuse mail-in voting first took effect under Act 77—and certainly well before the General Election, when millions of Pennsylvania voters requested, received, and returned mail-in ballots for the first time. Petitioners certainly knew all facts relevant to their present claims during that entire period. Indeed, "the procedures used to enact [Act 77] were published in the Legislative Journal and available to the public" since at least October 2019. See Stilp, 718 A.2d at 294. Likewise, "[t]he provisions of the Constitution that the [General Assembly] purportedly violated were also readily available." See id. And yet, Petitioners did nothing.3 Petitioner Wanda Logan ran and lost in a special election in February after Act 77 took effect. And not only she, but U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell also participated in the 2020 primary elections under Act 77, as modified by Act 12,4 in June of this year.5 But it occurred to none of them to challenge the constitutionality of Act 77 before then, or indeed before participating in and contemplating the results of the 2020 General Election.
<snip>
Having delayed this suit until two elections were conducted under Act 77's new, no-excuse mail-in voting system, Petitioners—several of whom participated in primary elections under this system without complaint—play a dangerous game at the expense of every Pennsylvania voter. Petitioners waived their opportunity to challenge Act 77 before the election, choosing instead to "lay by and gamble upon receiving a favorable decision of the electorate." Toney v. White, 488 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians. It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters.12 Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.

--- footnotes ---

3 Even worse, at least one Petitioner actively encouraged his supporters to cast mail-in ballots for him in his bid for Congress. See Ryan Deto, Sean Parnell is suing Pa. over mail-in voting, even though he praised mail-in voting earlier this year, PITTSBURGH CITY PAPER (Nov. 21, 2020), https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsbu...t?oid=18413927.

4 Act of March 27, 2020, P.L. 41, No. 12.

5 Parnell lost in the General Election to incumbent U.S. Representative Conor Lamb.

12 See Koter v. Cosgrove, 844 A.2d 29, 33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) ("The continuing and efficient operation of government is dependent upon the prompt resolution of election contests. Our system depends upon the timely certification of a winner.").

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2020-11-29 at 03:05 Reason: Fix formatting
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-29, 14:27   #559
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

11000001011112 Posts
Default

So the next step by the PA Republicans will be to change the law (or attempt to change the law) to add significant restrictions to mail-in voting. This would be consistent with voter suppression tactics used by Republicans across the country and they are likely to succeed if the next governor of PA is a Republican.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-29, 15:34   #560
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

101418 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
So the next step by the PA Republicans will be to change the law (or attempt to change the law) to add significant restrictions to mail-in voting. This would be consistent with voter suppression tactics used by Republicans across the country and they are likely to succeed if the next governor of PA is a Republican.
If the interpretation that the Pennsylvania State Constitution only allows mail-in (absentee) ballots in the situations described in Article VII, section 14 is upheld, the 2019 law enabling "no excuse" mail-in voting will be annulled, and the restrictions will be deemed as already being enshrined in the State Constitution.

Amending the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires majority votes by both State Houses in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature, plus approval of a referendum by voters endorsing the Amendment.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-11-29, 15:37   #561
Nick
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands

5×317 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
... plus approval of a referendum by voters...
Can they mail that in?
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
July 2020 tgan Puzzles 6 2020-08-31 11:30
May 2020 tgan Puzzles 4 2020-06-08 09:49
U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2018 ewmayer Soap Box 174 2019-07-08 12:50
U.S. Electile Dysfunction 2016 cheesehead Soap Box 843 2016-11-09 01:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:29.

Wed Jan 27 01:29:54 UTC 2021 up 54 days, 21:41, 0 users, load averages: 2.57, 3.06, 3.44

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.