Posted on 11/12/2020 5:48:51 AM PST by SmokingJoe
In the coming days, we will learn whether the Supreme Court will consider the merits of a Petition filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania to overturn a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that extended by three days the time within which mailed-in ballots in Pennsylvania could be received and counted as validly cast, among other things. The Trump campaign has sought to “intervene” in this case as a “party” by adopting the arguments made by the Petitioners
On Monday, the Trump Campaign and two Pennsylvania voters filed a new lawsuit alleging that the ballot handling processes by which mailed-in ballots were received, pre-canvassed, and canvassed, violated the constitutional rights of Pennsylvania voters in having a fair and accurate tabulation of votes.
SNIP
But, what is important to know now is that Justice Thomas was one of the two Justices who joined Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence. Further, the “textualist” view of Constitutional law has gained much ground in the judiciary since 2000. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett are clearly “textualists” in their approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation, and while not quite as clearly defined, Justice Kavanaugh has already written that he has significant issues with what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did.
If Chief Justice Roberts lines up with the three liberals, and there is a 5-4 vote to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, the senior Justice in the majority determines who writes the Court’s Opinion. That would be Justice Thomas, and it is my prediction that in that event he would choose to write the opinion himself.
That is the reason for the headline above — the “Revenge of Clarence Thomas” on Joe Biden.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
The justices will remember all the ranting about how Bush was “selected not elected” in 2000 and may be afraid to be the ones who ultimately decide the outcome of the election. They may think that protecting the reputation of the Court (in the eyes of the opinion-makers and the establishment) is more important than the people having confidence that the election was not stolen.
When has nonsensical, idiotic garbage from far left liberals/media ever stopped Clarence Thomas from doing his constitutional duty?
Answer: Never
The Pennsylvania State Legislature doesn’t need the Supreme Courts permission to DISREGARD the Election Results after the State Court and Secretary of State ILLEGALLY Usurped their Authority to determine Election Law granted to them in article 2 section 1 of the US Constitution, Just THROW OUT The Election and pick new Electors.
Force the Quislings in the State Court to demand they have a right to OVERRULE the US Constitution.
The pennsylvania republican legislature were foolish to allow universal mail-in ballots. Prior to 2019, voters had to submit a reason for absentee ballots.
Republican voters are always more reliable to vote in person on election day. The stupid GOP gave away their advantage. Now they will never again win a statewide election.
The Philadelphia machine will be able to easily manufacture mail-in ballots, into perpetuity, without any risk of punishment or fines.
Stupid GOP. Stupid!
The law of Pennsylvania was trampled upon to allow dubious untimely and unlawful ballots into the counting process.
The Pennsylvania legislature probably needs to be told to hold a new election or choose the electors itself.
I’m sure that the legislature would be much more comfortable being told this than taking the initiative on their own.
If I had my way, everyone except Alito and Thomas on the SC and Congress would be replaced by clones of Thomas.
I hope the conservative majority on the court hangs the left by their own petard !
The left has been arguing for decades, that the constitution is ALIVE, and says and means whatever the majority on the court says it does!
Let the left EAT CROW !
lets show them the folly of that! approach by having them just give these disputed states to Trump, or order all mail ballots thrown out, not even allow those states to be counted at all, or just outright declare Trump the winner!
I mean... it’s a LIVING constitution right lefties?
yeah.. you see how that works? not so great when the shoe is on the other foot is it?
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77
It specifies in Section 7:
“(ii) An absentee ballot cast by any absentee elector as defined in section 1301(i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (n), an absentee ballot under section 1302(a.3) or a mail-in ballot cast by a mail-in elector shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if the absentee ballot or mail-in ballot is received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.”
And then we have
“Section 11. Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void. “
When the PA Supreme Court struck down the requirement of Section 7, it triggered the “nonseverability” clause.
My impression is that the US Supreme Court could rule that, when the PA Supreme Court struck down the deadline, it also struck down the authorization for mail-in ballots.
It remains to be seen as to whether the Supremes have the guts to say that.
The State Legislature should be on OFFENSE in a Big Way, Force the other side to make a case that they have the Authority to OVERRULE the US Constitution.
For some reason, it seems that states are sticking with the legitimacy of their elections.
I don’t understand why. There is a mix of party affiliation in different agencies of government in these states. Of course, not all R’s support Trump.
But the gross appearance of outside interference or naked partisan tampering would seem to me to have these states wanting to investigate and take charge of the process in place.
Yet, for example, we have Arizona, under the leadership of a Dem, plodding resolutely through a slow-count-to-China, hell-bent on a certification of what is no doubt a fraudulent vote. Does the state stop her? No.
I like that!
Because the burden of proof is 100 percent on any claim of fraud or malfeasence.
As it should be.
ANY claim about ANYTHING bears the entirety of the burden of proof.
I have great respect for Justice Thomas and firmly believe he will vote to uphold the law and the Constitution, not vote in any way because of some revenge factor.
That's not enough votes to swing the election.
Doubtful they will toss out PA's entire law given that the supremes are already opening toying with severability re: Individual Mandate vs the rest obamacommiecare.
The world is not an episode of “Law and Order”.
It is not a court room.
State elected officials take action all the time without any “proof”. An investigation generates proof.
If it looks like they’re running a sham election, I would think that might bother them, even if only just politically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.