Pennsylvania Supreme Court Tosses Challenge
to Vote-by-Mail Because it came Too Late
Breibart,
by
Joel B. Pollak
Original Article
Posted By: BarryNo,
11/29/2020 6:23:45 AM
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order Saturday vacating a lower court’s decision to suspend the certification of the state’s vote in the presidential election, holding that a challenge to the state’s vote-by-mail laws had come too late. On Saturday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Judge McCullough’s order under the doctrine of “laches,” ruling that Rep. Kelly and others should have brought the constitutional challenge before the primary and general elections in 2020 — not after millions of voters in Pennsylvania had already cast their ballots:
I guess 800,000 duplicate ballots being counted isn't enough to worry about, eh? Nothing to see here...
44 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
sw penn 11/29/2020 6:34:21 AM (No. 619039)
Completely expected decision by the politicians on the PASC.
Hi ho, hi ho, to the USSC we go...
36 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
ussjimmycarter 11/29/2020 6:37:44 AM (No. 619041)
Amy we await your brilliance
32 people like this.
Is this old news? Did Judge McCullough reconfirm her original decision after this?
In any case, is this is true, is it beneficial to the Trump camp because the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court?
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
George R. 11/29/2020 6:53:19 AM (No. 619046)
It's ok for an Act to violate the Constitution if the rule has been around for a little while... Given the opportunity, that argument could be entertained even just twenty minutes after passage of the unconstitutional act. " You shoulda objected immediately" is clearly the the only time to object to any Democratic Party bill.
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DCGIRL 11/29/2020 6:53:23 AM (No. 619047)
Off to the Supreme Court! Remember the PA Supreme court told Alto to pound sand when he did not want the ballots that came in after Nov 3 8pm to be counted. They were to be left aside. The PA Supreme court told the Election offices to do the opposite after Alto told them to not count those ballots. Let's see what Alto's response is going to be.
27 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 11/29/2020 7:25:27 AM (No. 619057)
Now it is up to the Pennsylvania legislature to reclaim their right to appoint the electors.
20 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 11/29/2020 7:27:51 AM (No. 619060)
"Laches" is a pretty thin reed (a state-law equitable remedy) and appears to be an attempt to insulate their ruling from Supreme Court review by trying to make the decision "independently supported by state law." Generally speaking, the Court won't review cases whose decisions are independently supported by state law.
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Krause 11/29/2020 7:30:30 AM (No. 619064)
‘You should have brought the crime to us before it was committed.’
30 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
privateer 11/29/2020 7:54:04 AM (No. 619081)
Luckily for the commiecrats, the blackmail and bribes arrived in plenty of time.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
vhs68 11/29/2020 7:59:16 AM (No. 619088)
Did I miss something in the article? Did it ever state what was the date for the statue of limitations for any appeal? This articles seem to imply that just the next election is the date for any appeal.
I thought I previously read that the PSC justices are elected instead of appointed?
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Daisymay 11/29/2020 8:02:47 AM (No. 619092)
We expected this and they didn't disappoint! That they think it's up to the people who were the Targets of the Fraud to challenge what happens in the PA Government is really beyond the Pale! How about it was really up to the Legislature to challenge the Governor and Sec. of State who decided to walk all over the State's Constitution! That's where I would lay the blame!
13 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Quigley 11/29/2020 8:07:44 AM (No. 619096)
I doubt anything would have happened differently had the action been filed the day the legislation was passed- the case would not yet have been heard and this Penn sup ct would have allowed the election to go ahead with the unconstitutional voting scheme.
What really should have happened was that this court should have declared the statute unconstitutional at the time it was busy extending the ballot deadline.
On whose behalf was the laches defense asserted? The voters who were diluted by an unconstitutional voting scheme? Or Joe’s bi.den, the beneficiary of the scheme? The people who used the mailins properly should not have relied on unscrupulous politicians foisting an unconstitutional voting scheme to disenfranchise them.
10 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
snapper451 11/29/2020 8:08:58 AM (No. 619098)
Yes, including the 1.1 million fake by mail votes. When you send out 1.8 million, you get back 1.4 million - but report 2.5 million votes by mail - you certainly do have a problem, even if you are a partisan Democrat State Supreme Court judge.
18 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
seamusm 11/29/2020 8:16:01 AM (No. 619101)
Does the PA constitution establish a time limit for objection? If not - and I doubt it is true - then this is akin to saying if the police do not catch you BEFORE you commit the crime then they cannot arrest you AFTER?
14 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
msjena 11/29/2020 8:29:33 AM (No. 619107)
The US Supreme Court isn’t going to take this because it’s a matter of state law. I do wonder why mail-in voting wasn’t challenged before the election.
5 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Muguy 11/29/2020 8:39:55 AM (No. 619110)
BE of stout heart-- the news media's total focus NOW is to dishearten and discourage the public into giving up and to just accept the 'beating'--
We are not pledging Delta fraternity.. (yes Sir, may I have another...)
We are so close to victory....we must stay in this fight because if we give up, we will be lose the blessings of Liberty and submit to tyranny of the mob.
Remember: "It is better to die on our feet rather than to live on our knees!"
15 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Mofongo 11/29/2020 8:51:07 AM (No. 619113)
Never ever give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt. Strangle their conniving in the crib.
10 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
bpl40 11/29/2020 8:53:12 AM (No. 619115)
As Rudy explained it 1.8 million mail in ballots were sent out (known before Nov 3), 1.4 were returned (not known as many came after the Nov 3 'deadline',), 2.5 were counted in the final vote tally (definitely not known before hand). Come on man!
11 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
red1066 11/29/2020 9:09:03 AM (No. 619124)
So as I understand the ruling, Trump would have had to know about and have evidence of fraud before anyone voted.
9 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 11/29/2020 9:09:04 AM (No. 619125)
The PSC continues in it's jihad against Trump. It is only obvious they are part of the coordinated effort to steal the election.
10 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
lakerman1 11/29/2020 9:27:38 AM (No. 619135)
The legal concept of laches - sitting on one's rights - has been around forever.
If you sit on your legal rights, and don't sue until some future time, it damages the judicial system.
The elected Pa Supreme Court was correct on this on this one. Republicans in Pa were asleep at the switch.
3 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
DVC 11/29/2020 9:28:09 AM (No. 619136)
And if they had sued before the election, they would have ruled that they had no standing because there had been no harm to anyone.
"Legal" frequently has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.
17 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
PlayItAgain 11/29/2020 9:30:38 AM (No. 619137)
This court is discrediting itself. This justification smacks of desperation. They are giving SCOTUS every reason to take on this issue.
9 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
davew 11/29/2020 9:36:51 AM (No. 619149)
From reading Mike Kelly's account of the history of Act 77 everyone including the governor and SoS understood that they had to get legislative approval for the Act to satisfy the PA constitution. This process was started but when it stalled in the legislature due to Republican objections the board of elections just mailed out the ballots anyway and ignored the process. Better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission if you're running a scam.
I'm not sure this qualifies as something that can go to the SCOTUS because it deals with a state's constitution and the state supreme court is the final authority of these matter. Only the legislature has the power to recognize the fraud election and take back control of the elector selection process.
4 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Strike3 11/29/2020 9:41:44 AM (No. 619155)
This will not stand. They attempted to extend the voting deadline and the counting time but it's not okay to challenge vote fraud unless you meet a statute of limitations measured in days. Sorry Pennsylvania, you are corrupt and evil and will pay the price. 20 electoral votes to Trump.
4 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
MDConservative 11/29/2020 9:44:16 AM (No. 619158)
Take it to the Supremes...that's what the state courts are aiming for, as are the lower Federal courts. And SCOTUS will punt it to the state legislatures and the House of Representatives. You wanted originalists...under the Constitution the courts are essentially powerless.
3 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Laotzu 11/29/2020 9:45:43 AM (No. 619161)
Laches is a way for judges to throw out cases that lack an objective justification for dismissal. It's the "none of the above" of legal reasons for dismissing a case.
5 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
VietVet68 11/29/2020 9:58:51 AM (No. 619179)
Just how much fraud has to occur for the leftist Pennsylvania supreme court to see the light? If the shoe were on the other foot they would be incensed and demanding action. Hypocrites!
1 person likes this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
chance_232 11/29/2020 10:12:44 AM (No. 619191)
A couple of thoughts....
It was the PA Supreme Court that itself ordered that absentee ballots should be counted after having been received after Nov 3rd, and ordered that signatures need not be checked, and didn't enforce its own rulings concerning poll watchers, and ordered undated ballots, ballots received without dates etc. be counted.
The PA Supreme Court exceeded its authority by changing the law. Only the legislature has that authority.
This ruling strikes me as a tacit admission that something is wrong, but its just too late to fix it. To make that claim is ridiculous. Warning flags were everywhere. There were challenges that were struck down in advance. There were challenges while the counting was ongoing.
7 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 11/29/2020 10:17:11 AM (No. 619200)
Investigate those SC Judges... they're compromised.
6 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
JimJr 11/29/2020 10:41:41 AM (No. 619219)
I have read several posts indicating that a suit against PA Act 77 was filed prior to the election and dismissed because as the election had not yet happened, so
no injury had been incurred. So the PASC created a catch-22.
Let's look to confirm this initial suit.
6 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 11/29/2020 11:58:48 AM (No. 619272)
May those on the current PA court roast in Hades for a very long time for this outrage. Enabling fraud is just one reason why Americans loathe the legal/judicial system in this nation now.
1 person likes this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
NYbob 11/29/2020 12:42:10 PM (No. 619317)
This fetish of making some kind of priesthood out of judges has dragged us into very dark places. If only there was some kind of consequences for blatant abuse of justice by justices. I mean disbarment, stripping of all benefits, etc. Of course there is an answer. It is up to society to get serious about doing something about it.
1 person likes this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
SavageRider 11/29/2020 3:42:15 PM (No. 619428)
It is never too late to challenge the constitutionality of a law. That is a stupid argument.
0 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
stablemoney 11/29/2020 7:28:08 PM (No. 619570)
The Pa. SC knowingly avoided the issue that officials had no authority to change the law on mail in voting, that only the legislature could do that. It don't make any difference when the lawsuit was brought, when the mail in voting proclamations were illegal to begin with.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "BarryNo"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
By this argument, unless you detect and officially complain about a thief planning to rob your house, you may not, after the fact, either punish the thief, or reclaim your goods. The PA Supreme Court has shown it has no interest in Justice, nor integrity.