The Constitutional issue here is clear, at least to me.
If the Pennsylvania Legislature provided for extended counting in their provisions for appointing Electors, it’s Constitutional under the Federal Constitution.
If this extended counting was ordered by a court, any court, and it violates the Pennsylvania Legislature’s SOLE POWER to appoint Electors, then it’s unconstitutional.
Exactly. And the PA legislature needs to get off their duffs and tell the court to pound sand, since they have exclusive control over this matter - no acceptance of ballots after the polls close.
You got it right.
SCOTUS did not agree to hearing the case on an expedited schedule is all.
This ruling said this case may NOT escape review (and ruling) on a lesser of an emergency scheduling.
Not a loss. An improper filing for immediacy from SCOTUS taking the case.
The PA Legislature did not extend the deadline. Our corrupt state supreme court did.
“Alito wrote that it would be “highly desirable” to decide the case before the election and that there is a “strong likelihood” that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling violates the Constitution.
“But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election,” he wrote.
In addition to an expedited schedule, Republicans had asked the Supreme Court to order Pennsylvania to keep ballots that are received after Nov. 3 separated. Pennsylvania told the justices earlier on Wednesday that it will do so voluntarily.
Alito wrote that nothing prevented the GOP from asking the Supreme Court for relief “if, for some reason, it is not satisfied” with the assurance provided by the state.”
The Gop should seek relief that PA must separate the ballots that come in after Nove 3rd not just voluntarily. Alito is saying this I think
Thanx for the clarity. Now, what DOES the Pennsylvania Xonstitution say regarding late balloting?
Just noting that goes both ways. You could get a democrat legislature (or a RINO one) voting to allow questionable votes to be counted when a judge would prohibit it, and under this rule the judge’s opinion wouldn’t matter.