Posted on 12/09/2016 2:21:39 PM PST by dirtboy
A federal judge in Philadelphia will rule Monday on the Green Party-backed petition for a Pennsylvania recount, leaving just one day before the state needs to certify its presidential vote total for the electoral college.
Judge Paul Diamond signaled his plan after a Friday afternoon hearing in which supporters of Green Party nominee Jill Stein pushed their bid for a recount, citing concerns about the integrity of Pennsylvania's voting system and the technology it uses.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
I am so sick of this crap. IF she were Trump, would it have gotton this far? I think not.
And it would seem to me Trump is not too worried about it as he continues to interview and appoint people to his cabinet.
“And PA SoS is a democrat.”
yep.
In Wisconsin the story is that the recount has to be completed by 8:00 PM Monday the 12th.
Maybe that was fake news tho.
In Wisconsin the story is that the recount has to be completed by 8:00 PM Monday the 12th.
Maybe that was fake news tho.
The law is pretty useless when we have activist judges.
there will be no state wide recount(paper) or statewide sequester/audit of electronic machines). SOS will certify on the 13th.
Attorneys for both sides probably have their appeal/opposition drafted for the Court of Appeals and a Emergency Petition for SCOTUS. They’re paid by the word ;)
This guy does not strike me as an activist judge.
The Federal judge will rule on Monday on the full recount issue... if he rules it must proceed, then it's game over for Trump's PA delegates. What am I missing here... the SOS can't overruled a Federal judge, can he?
Something of significance has to happen before the 13th because of safe haven and the constitutional reporting requirements. Michigan’s vote count has already been certified.
Can’t deny th electors
Under the Bush v. Gore decision if the state does not have time to complete a full recount then they certify their original count.
Yes. Hopefully his plan is to rule against her on Monday, and she would have no time to appeal before the safe harbor day, which is Tuesday.
You can read some of his comments here: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-07/pennsylvania-democrats-lose-ruling-over-trump-poll-watchers
In the earlier case, he wrote: The Democrats’ “belated, inflammatory allegations appear intended to generate only heat,” and don’t support claims that the Trump campaign threatened voting rights, Diamond said in a 16-page ruling.
He also had some pointed questions for Stein/Clinton/Soros lawyers today.
Heh, heh. He is planning to make sure that she has no time to appeal.
It’s over.
Why does anyone even care about what an Inferior Judge on an Inferior Court Created by Congress has to say in the first place??
Tell him to POUND SAND
Article 3, section 2 US CONSTITUTION
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction
and from Judge Moore
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
I’m fairly certain this hearing is about whether or not Stein has to pay a one million dollar bond for the recount, not whether or not she can have a recount.
Exactly! If anyone is in doubt, look up his ruling against the DNC from Nov 8, 2016.
Just saying ...THE FIX IS IN!!!
1) Diamond is slow walking the decision because the 3rd Circuit Court, where an appeal would take place, is evenly split. By issuing a ruling on Monday he guarantees there will be no time for an appeal. Based on his history, the likelihood he would order a recount is about as close as it gets to absolute zero.
2) The PA legislature is controlled by Republicans and will appoint the sleight of electors in the event a controversy still exists as of the deadline. In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court has already ruled that the state legislatures have plenary power to appoint electors and that no court at any level can interfere with that power.
3) Won't be decided by Congress. As soon as the MI Supreme Court declines a request to overturn the MI Appeals Court ruling, nothing that happens in either WI or PA will matter, and nothing is going to the Congress. Even if it did, Trump would still be President. The House GOP isn't suicidal.
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.