Pennsylvania: Legal Updates

[Right_in_Virginia]

Harsh but Mostly Thoughtful John McGrath
@jfmcg21

  Who’s having lunch with @realDonaldTrump today?

The Entire GOP Caucus from the PA State Legislature


10:22 AM · Dec 23, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/jfmcg21/status/1341766125005250561

[Right_in_Virginia]

MG Show
@intheMatrixxx

Breaking News: Pennsylvania's own election data ported straight from the government site found 191,725 ballot records were edited or fixed AFTER election day.



11:14 AM · Dec 23, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/intheMatrixxx/status/1341779180304936961

[Right_in_Virginia]

Supreme Court Fails to Immediately Act on Trump Campaign’s Request to Expedite Pennsylvania Appeal
Epoch Times, Dec 23, 2020

The Supreme Court on Wednesday docketed an appeal filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign that seeks to reverse cases by a state court but did not immediately act on the campaign’s request to expedite the case.

Instead, the top court’s docket shows a Jan. 22, 2021. deadline—two days after the presidential inauguration day—for when the state is required to respond to the request for appeal.

The campaign filed the suit on Monday challenging three Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings that “illegally changed” the mail-in ballot laws “immediately before and after the 2020 presidential election,” the legal team said.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-fails-to-immediately-act-on-trump-campaigns-request-to-expedite-pennsylvania-appeal_3630045.html

[Cyber Liberty]

Another day, another stab in the back by a lawless SCOTUS.

[Bigun]

Another day, another stab in the back by a lawless SCOTUS.

It should by now be evident to anyone paying any attention at all that the swamp has overcome the Constitution, we are no longer a nation of laws, and thus the union is desolved.  Welcome to the newly minted Banana republic!

Merry Christmas!

[aligncare]

It should by now be evident to anyone paying any attention at all that the swamp has overcome the Constitution, we are no longer a nation of laws, and thus the union is desolved.  Welcome to the newly minted Banana republic!

Merry Christmas!

Just finished watching an episode of Star Trek DS9 where the Dominion was making deep inroads into the Alpha Quadrant, and where world after world was compliantly signing a Non Aggression pact with the Dominion in the face of mounting threats from the Dominion’s menacing Jem'’Hadar forces. It was shaping up to be a “peaceful” takeover of the Alpha Quadrant, it seemed.

Meanwhile, Deep Space 9 has been observing waves of Jem'’Hadar troop convoys entering the Alpha Quadrant through the wormhole every week. What to do?

Finally, Starfleet orders Sisko to mine the entrance to the wormhole and stop any more Dominion convoys from entering the Alpha Quadrant. But, Odo notes that if the Federation tries to stop those convoys, “it may very well start a war.”

Sisko looks around at his officers in the briefing room and intones, “Maybe so...but one thing is certain. We’re losing the peace, which means a war could be our only hope.”

And a Merry Christmas to you, too, @Bigun

[Bigun]

In my judgment, the following is 100% spot on!

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Excerpted from:  https://www.westernjournal.com/twj-exclusive-bombshell-new-legal-memo-giving-trump-supporters-hope-christmas-eve/

[sneakypete]

Supreme Court Fails to Immediately Act on Trump Campaign’s Request to Expedite Pennsylvania Appeal
Epoch Times, Dec 23, 2020

The Supreme Court on Wednesday docketed an appeal filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign that seeks to reverse cases by a state court but did not immediately act on the campaign’s request to expedite the case.

Instead, the top court’s docket shows a Jan. 22, 2021. deadline—two days after the presidential inauguration day—for when the state is required to respond to the request for appeal.

The campaign filed the suit on Monday challenging three Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings that “illegally changed” the mail-in ballot laws “immediately before and after the 2020 presidential election,” the legal team said.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-fails-to-immediately-act-on-trump-campaigns-request-to-expedite-pennsylvania-appeal_3630045.html

@Right_in_Virginia

Which is The Supremes way of saying "PLEASE doan make usins make no unpopular decisions!"

[sneakypete]

Another day, another stab in the back by a lawless SCOTUS.

@Cyber Liberty

I can only add "and GUTLESS!" to what you posted.

[libertybele]

It should by now be evident to anyone paying any attention at all that the swamp has overcome the Constitution, we are no longer a nation of laws, and thus the union is desolved.  Welcome to the newly minted Banana republic!

Merry Christmas!

What you stated is true.  There is no way around it, no other way to look at the situation.

This is the Christmas Season and a Savior was born.  Firmly hold on to your faith; that is what we have left.  You have your morals and your principles and continue to stand by them.


Matthew 1:21
She will give birth to a Son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins."


Merry Christmas!! May God Bless You and yours @Bigun and may he help you to move forward and stay strong through the trials and uncertainty of the future.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Supreme Court Fails to Immediately Act on Trump Campaign’s Request to Expedite Pennsylvania Appeal
Epoch Times, Dec 23, 2020

The Supreme Court on Wednesday docketed an appeal filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign that seeks to reverse cases by a state court but did not immediately act on the campaign’s request to expedite the case.

Instead, the top court’s docket shows a Jan. 22, 2021. deadline—two days after the presidential inauguration day—for when the state is required to respond to the request for appeal.

The campaign filed the suit on Monday challenging three Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings that “illegally changed” the mail-in ballot laws “immediately before and after the 2020 presidential election,” the legal team said.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-fails-to-immediately-act-on-trump-campaigns-request-to-expedite-pennsylvania-appeal_3630045.html

I believe we are witnessing the most irrelevant entity in our Government.  Why have a Supreme Court if it decides not to do what they were hired to do?

[bigheadfred]

I believe we are witnessing the most irrelevant entity in our Government.  Why have a Supreme Court if it decides not to do what they were hired to do?

There isn't.

It is like they are pawns of the Nth degree.

[bigheadfred]

Ain't got much use out of the most of ALL government.

[sneakypete]

I believe we are witnessing the most irrelevant entity in our Government.  Why have a Supreme Court if it decides not to do what they were hired to do?

@IsailedawayfromFR

AND.....,it is a lifetime job and they can't be removed.

[Smokin Joe]

@IsailedawayfromFR

AND.....,it is a lifetime job and they can't be removed.

They can be impeached, but that is about as likely as me running a two minute mile.

[roamer_1]

They can be impeached, but that is about as likely as me running a two minute mile.

C'mon  up... We'll go find a griz... You'll get it done. 

[Smokin Joe]

C'mon  up... We'll go find a griz... You'll get it done. 

I won't have to go that fast. I'll be running on dry, hard ground...unlike anything pursuing me.

[roamer_1]

I won't have to go that fast. I'll be running on dry, hard ground...unlike anything pursuing me.

LOL! Yeah. You can always throw poop in their eyes... And don't worry for the poop. It'll be there. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Pennsylvania says it found dead voters in Philadelphia!

...Two. And they both happen to be Trump votes, according to them. Other than that, no fraud. No sirree bob!
https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/43089105/man-accused-of-casting-dead-mothers-ballot

[Smokin Joe]

LOL! Yeah. You can always throw poop in their eyes... And don't worry for the poop. It'll be there. 

Well, If I have my chili the day before, they'll just think it's a new flavor of bear spray...

[Cyber Liberty]

@Smokin Joe, you don't have to outrun the gris...you only have to outrun @roamer_1, and he says he's still stoved up.

[roamer_1]

@Smokin Joe, you don't have to outrun the gris...you only have to outrun @roamer_1, and he says he's still stoved up.

Yep. But that means I always got a stick... And mountain trails are narrow. It don't take much to whack you good across the knees as you go sailing past... Folks tend to forget that at least once.  And that's all I need.

[roamer_1]

Well, If I have my chili the day before, they'll just think it's a new flavor of bear spray...

Put plenty of pepper on it.. They like that pepper... 

[Hoodat]

In my judgment, the following is 100% spot on!


Excerpted from:  https://www.westernjournal.com/twj-exclusive-bombshell-new-legal-memo-giving-trump-supporters-hope-christmas-eve/

Agreed.  Thanks for posting.

[sneakypete]

Taking this one step beyond the subject matter,is there any legal way that a President Trump serving a second term can bring forward a bill to remove Roberts from the SC for dereliction of duty or incompetence?

That would be almost as sweet as seeing Trump serve a second term because it would also scare whiz out of the remaining "justices" who think they are all demi-gods that are untouchable.