Image 01 Image 03

Pennsylvania: Alito Moves Up Response Date on Emergency Application To 12/8

Pennsylvania: Alito Moves Up Response Date on Emergency Application To 12/8

So what is this about? More mind-reading: It takes the “safe harbor” issue off the table if that were an impediment to SCOTUS issuing a substative ruling. -- Public Domain

A lot of people read a lot into Justice Samuel Alito setting December 9, 2020, as the date for Pennsylvania and its officials to respond to the Emergency Application for Injunctive Relief filed by people challenging the Pennsylvania certification. The argument was that Alito was going to let the application die on the vine, so to speak, by putting the response date the day after the federal “safe harbor” date for certifying elections, December 8.

I didn’t read read any such intention into it, Pennsylvania – Don’t Assume Alito Giving Until 12/9 To Respond To Emergency Application Means He’s Letting It Die On the Vine.

If anything, I conjectured, perhaps it was a sign that at least some of the Justices were taking it seriously, because a quick denial would be easy. Taking it seriously doesn’t mean they would grant relief, but there may be opinions issued by various Justices, and that would require a few days.

I don’t think the “safe harbor” date would preclude the Supreme Court from acting, but it may have been something weighing on the minds of some Justices, because an “updated” entry on the Supreme Court docket just move the deadline to 9 a.m. Tuesday, December 8.

Response to application (20A98) requested by Justice Alito, due Tuesday, December 8, by 9 a.m. (docket entry updated 12/6/20)

So what is this about?

More mind-reading: It takes the “safe harbor” issue off the table if that were an impediment to SCOTUS issuing a substantive ruling. The Justices can rule on the merits, pro or con.

UPDATE 12-8-2020 9 a.m.

You can read the response filed by Pennsylvania here.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Don’t like this. Any negative ruling/denial of relief will be construed as definitive as to all allegations everywhere. No matter how flawed that interpretation weak willed state legislators and establishment republicans opposed to trump will seize on that to call an end to challenges and to accept Biden/Harris.

This is most likely simply CYA, for the SCOTUS.

There is no way that the Court can reverse the election results based upon the evidence obtained at this time. All it can logically do is to suspend the certification dates, such as the Safe Harbor date. Now that the suspicion has arisen that the SCOTUS will deny the requested action and there will be no time for true argument, due to the actions triggered by that date, the presentation deadline gets moved ahead a day. It undermines the argument that the SCOTUS never intended to provide any relief and this was merely a political stunt. Actually, it does nothing of the kind and the SCOTUS will refuse to take any action, again. At that point the legal challenges all become moot and only poliitical and extra-legal actions remain viable.

    Concise in reply to Mac45. | December 6, 2020 at 1:04 pm

    Yeah, theoretically viable but do you really think spineless state legislators will do anything after the vaunted court disposes of the matter? Not a chance in Hades.

    20keto20 in reply to Mac45. | December 6, 2020 at 1:10 pm

    Maybe more than CYA, this is don’t get impeached. We all know that if the two Georgia seats go the way of the stolen election, then Chuck the Schmuck plans to “transform” the court. So if he gets Nazi Nanzi to get Adam Schitt to begin impeachment hearings for Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett and the Senate agrees, they will appoint 5 Communist/Socialist radicals and they don’t have to “pack” the court! That’s the fear!!

      TheOldZombie in reply to 20keto20. | December 6, 2020 at 1:50 pm

      Impeachment of sitting justices requires 67 votes in the Senate.

      So that’s not going to happen. No current justice is getting impeached and removed from the bench.

        Groundhog Day in reply to TheOldZombie. | December 6, 2020 at 2:11 pm

        There’s a lot of RINO’s…

          TheOldZombie in reply to Groundhog Day. | December 6, 2020 at 2:13 pm

          Not even the RINO’s would vote to convict a sitting justice absent real good evidence of malfeasance of some type.

          These same RINO’s voted the justices to their current spots.

          The justices are safe from impeachment.

          Well, maybe not Roberts if whatever is being used to blackmail him ever goes public…..

      maxmillion in reply to 20keto20. | December 6, 2020 at 3:10 pm

      I agree. The justices read the papers, watch TV news, and surf the web. They know of threats to pack the court.

    gwsjr425 in reply to Mac45. | December 7, 2020 at 7:13 am

    Why? At least eight states ignored their election laws that regulate the mail in ballots and the security measures put in place. Any ballot accepted outside those laws is invalid. If those ballots were mixed with legit mail in ballots, then the entire mail in ballot pool is invalid.

A winning brief on election fraud has been submitted by a non-lawyer.

    snopercod in reply to Valerie. | December 6, 2020 at 3:41 pm

    I have always thought that the banning of Republican observers – by itself – should be enough to invalidate the election. But then I’m just a nobody… Thanks for the link, Valerie.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to snopercod. | December 6, 2020 at 4:17 pm

      “You may be a nobody, but, by George, you’re OUR nobody!!!”

      /all in good fun

      sfharding in reply to snopercod. | December 6, 2020 at 6:04 pm

      Not to mention openly cheering as they were removed. But I’m just a nobody too.

        I really wish the GOP poll watchers – a few of them at least – had ignored the verbal bullies and simply walked into where the votes were being counted. Make the Dems use physical force or assault to remove the GOP representatives. From there, file police reports. With out that, it’s just he said / she said.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

That seems pretty clear to me. Fraudulent votes abridge my voting privilege and neutralizes my choice for the most important office in the land.

    pfg in reply to Viator. | December 6, 2020 at 2:55 pm

    Add to that Article VI, section 4, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

    Milhouse in reply to Viator. | December 6, 2020 at 8:32 pm

    There is no 14th amendment right to vote at all. That’s why they needed the 15th amendment.

A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States:

Judge Alito should be furious on the Pennsylvania Democrats mail voting shenanigans. Hope it comes to something good for President Trump.

    alaskabob in reply to Skip. | December 6, 2020 at 2:36 pm

    Trump is the stand-in for the Republic. Vastly different than Joe Biden as a stand-in for forces of darkness.

    As Douglas Murray pointed out … two people see the same movie and come away with totally opposite descriptions. It makes the Black Knight scene in Monte Python seem tame compared to the gyrations needed to say no widespread fraud considering the potential for even global interference.

Add the “Constitution doesn’t take a holiday because of the pandemic” statement by Gorsuch. Well, in many states that did happen with voting laws solely because of the plandemic (thank you CCP).

It is interesting that the Left took the Declaration of Independence to heart by dissolving their bonds to the present legal system and went extra-legal to achieve THEIR more perfect union. With avenues to legal remedy being thwarted…hum… are we now going back in history to “trial by combat” and let G-d decide?

    henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | December 6, 2020 at 10:41 pm

    Well, that would at least be refreshing.
    Biden would waste hours of MSM airtime reading Ali-esque bluster off teleprompters; then with pomp ceremony befitting the Almighty Office of the President-Almost-Elect, he would meet Trump behind the barn, where Trump would stomp the little squirt into soy sauce and ride his Harley back to Pennsylvania Avenue.

If I have it straight, this case is about whether the mail-in / absentee voting procedures enacted by the PA legislature, allegedly in violation of the PA constitution, are valid. The PA Supreme Court, ruling for Biden*, says they are. Trump says they are in flat defiance of the plain language of the state constitution, and therefore wants SCOTUS to take the case, even though it normally does not rule on matters of state law. As the author says, it seems that some justices might be interested in ruling on the merits. (* For the sake of shortness I will refer to the litigants on each side by the last name of the candidate they support.)

Now here’s what I think is going to happen: Right wing of the court (accompanied by left wing concurring only in the judgement ) rules for Biden, on the ground that when the PA legislature enacted these rules, it acted as an arm of the Federal government, not as a state government entity, and therefore, it was not bound by the state constitution. That the PA State Supreme Court ruled in its favor is nice (if you’re Biden) but ultimately irrelevant. As Trump complained before the election regarding North Carolina (a state he ultimately won), neither the executive nor the judicial branch of a state can get involved in setting Federal election rules, a task assigned by the Federal constitution to state legislatures.

This feeds two birds with one scone: (1) Establishes the “umpire” bona fides of the new justices, by having them rule against the president who appointed them. (2) Creates a precedent which says that the doctrine enunciated in the previous paragraph is correct. In the long run this is more likely to help Republicans than it is Democrats, as shown by the consternation voiced on the left when it seemed that the Court might take the NC case.

    FOAF in reply to Zarkor. | December 6, 2020 at 2:54 pm

    Isn’t the controlling passage in the US Constitution the one that says,

    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …”

    In other words the Constitution specifically empowers the state legislatures and not the other branches of the state governments to determine the method of selecting electors. To be honest I have not followed the details of the cases but it seems to me this is what justifies bringing the case to the US Supreme Court.

    debra95673 in reply to Zarkor. | December 6, 2020 at 3:25 pm

    The case is not about a legislative action, it is about a judicial action. The democrats in the legislature, the legislature being THE body responsible for elections with a state (according to the US Constitution) tried unsuccessfully to extend the deadline for receipt of mail-in ballots. They were unsuccessful because the non-democrats in the state legislature wouldn’t approve an extension. The democrats then went to the Secretary of State, another democrat, to go around their colleagues and the Secretary of State went to the state supreme court. The state supreme court illegally granted an extension; they breached the boundaries of their authority and created a new law, a responsibility which is only that of the legislatures. What the state supreme court did, and what the democrats in the legislature and the Secretary of State did, violate the US Constitution. As a result of the illegal extension, all of those votes received late were included in the tally and should not have been counted as they were received after the legal deadline.

    The problem is whether those votes were genuinely set aside as Justice Alito directed so that they can be withdrawn from the count at a later date. If the state violated the directive of a SCOTUS justice, I don’t know the remedy for that much less the punitive consequences

      The remedy is simple: The SCOTUS can declare the election in PA to be null and void due to the various staggering violations of the process enacted by the legislature, therefore allowing the legislature to send its own electors to the electoral college as per the Constitution.

      Voting is a process of positive confirmation with a chain of custody, much like evidence in court. A filled-in ballot sitting on the floor has not been validated, and therefore cannot be counted. Same goes for a mail-in ballot received beyond the statutory deadline, or one that has had a failure in the verification process. The Dems who controlled the metro area knew that their vote manipulation scheme was wildly illegal, but they were gambling that the end numbers would be large enough to avoid a challenge. If we had one of the usual Surrender Republicans as a candidate, they would have been entirely correct.

      Sorry Debra, you are confusing two pennsylvania cases. Trump v Boockvar is the case regarding the three day extension for receipt of mail in ballots. That one is before the supreme court. It will be heard at some undetermined point in the future.
      The other case is Kelly v. PA, which is about the PA constitutional provision outlining when absentee ballots may be used.
      This article, and Justice Alito’s revision of the date, is about the Kelly case.

    Skip in reply to Zarkor. | December 6, 2020 at 4:59 pm

    Here is my understanding
    SoS Kathy Boockvar rewrote the law nullifying mail ballot signatures matches.
    Levin’s opinion is Act 77 never was officially completed and no matter who doesn’t follow the law makes it invalid.
    Democrats were supposed to separate ballots after the deadline and seems they kept counting them and all reports mail envelopes and ballots are no longer connected.
    The unverified drop boxes used in Pennsylvania are illegal, have no providence to know when, how or by who or how many each person left in them. Know Pennsylvania law does not allow ballot harvesting.
    No harm verifying what I wrote since I am not a lawyer or stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

    Dusty Pitts in reply to Zarkor. | December 6, 2020 at 5:39 pm

    on the ground that when the PA legislature enacted these rules, it acted as an arm of the Federal government, not as a state government entity, and therefore, it was not bound by the state constitution.

    Counter-argument: If a state’s legislature acts outside the bounds of that state’s constitution, it ceases to act as the state’s legislature and is therefore not eligible to act as an arm of the federal government. Therefore in order to implement rules required by the United States Constitution the legislature MUST also act only within the bounds of its own state constitution.

    To do otherwise is to abrogate its role as a lawmaking body.

      Accidently hit the thumbs down symbol.

      Mental gymnastics, legal jujitsu, even jive turkey sophistry is not the winning hand in this rule of law struggle. Think rumble in the jungle.

Just wishful thinking out loud but even if SCOTUS is risking being seen as overturning the results of an election, they can’t seriously believe that is a good reason for not stepping in to stop an obvious broad conspiracy coup attempt. This is the only chance they will get and it may be the last chance for anyone.

Once you vote away your rights, there is no voting them back in.

    debra95673 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 6, 2020 at 3:32 pm

    I don’t see it as SCOTUS overturning an election. I see it as SCOTUS reminding lower courts and state legislatures about the separation of powers which exists at both the federal and the state level. The PA state supreme court had no authority whatsoever to extend the deadline for receiving mail in ballots. The judiciary is meant to rule on existing laws, not create new laws. The legislature was unable to amend the state law which dictated the due date for the ballots; creating and amending laws is the sole responsibility of legislatures, followed by a signature from the head of the executive branch, whether that be a President or a governor. If events happened as I have heard reported and have shared here, it would be great for SCOTUS to inform the lower court that they operated outside of their authority and violated the US Constitution in the process.

      I see it as making sure that the official reported results reflect how voters actually voted. That’s not “overturning” anything. It’s correcting for fraud and arriving at the true results. An honest election.

        sfharding in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 6, 2020 at 6:06 pm


        DaveGinOly in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 6, 2020 at 8:17 pm

        Fraud doesn’t even have to enter into the equation. What happened is the equivalent of “illegal procedure” in the NFL – not necessarily cheating, but a violation of the rules nevertheless. The infringing team is not permitted to benefit from a play in which they ignored the rules, even when the infringement had no demonstrable effect on the outcome of the play.

          randian in reply to DaveGinOly. | December 6, 2020 at 11:44 pm

          That’s what should happen but our courts support election fraud by allowing you to do as much of it as you want so long as not all of it is found by your opponent, and by forbidding deep investigation through requiring proof of the fraud in advance.

          One problem with using the NFL rule in elections is NFL teams can’t effectively run false flag operations during a game. You can be certain the Democrats would be doing that if it wins elections.

    debra95673 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 6, 2020 at 3:33 pm

    Just my thoughts, for what they are worth

The entire mail in ballot scheme was hatched by Democrats knowing that, in every battleground metropolitan county, they controlled every aspect of the voting process, from the precinct to the courts (even the Post Office!). Central to their calculation was knowing that post-election, any allegations of voter fraud would be difficult to prove and uphold, and would face nearly impossible time constraints. Ultimately their calculation was that the courts, constrained by a ticking clock and confronted with difficult remedial choices, would simply throw up their hands and declare the fraud a “fait accompli”.
It is imperative that the Supreme Court see through this scheme, and declare itself prepared to impose real and serious remedies for the millions of Americans and the democratic process which were defrauded. Otherwise all is lost.

    fredx3 in reply to sfharding. | December 7, 2020 at 10:35 am

    The other highly questionable thing about the mail in vote is this – the Federal government gave 400 million to all fifty states to implement mail in voting
    Zuckerberg of Facebook, hired David Plouffe, Obama’s advisor, to give 400 million to just a few heavily Democratic cities. Supposedly, the aid was to help with Covid measures.
    But in many states, it is simply illegal for such sums of money to be given to Cities. It must be given to the states themselves, and then distributed equally.
    In effect, Zuckerberg created a public-private partnership, which excluded Trump leaning jurisdictions from participation. It may have also created a huge slush fund out of which money could be paid to buy off local election stealers. In Philadelphia, the money was used to pay for election judges!
    Under Bush v Gore, such grants are probably illegal, since they advantage only certain areas, and ignore others. The Amistad Project of The Thomas More Society has brought suit in many cases on this matter.

The winner of an election is the one with the largest number of votes.

The votes are derived from:
1. The choices made on the ballot itself
2. The procedures and processes adopted by the legislature regarding ‘handling’ and documenting the choices on the ballot
3. The security procedures of ballots when in custody or control of elections officials adopted by the legislature
4. The completeness of required information being provided with the ballot; name, signature,ID, witness name/signature etc all adopted by legislature
5. The lawful ability of an individual to cast a ballot, determined by the legislature

Bottom line is this. Votes are derived from lawfully processed ballots cast lawfully by eligible individuals.

If any part of the process isn’t followed as.directed by the legislature then that ballot doesn’t become a recordable vote.

Every election sees folks having to cast ‘provisional’ ballots. There are many reasons why they must do so v casting a normal ballot. In many cases, if the number of provisional ballots couldn’t overcome a lead they don’t even get reviewed much less counted.

That is no more a case of a disenfranchised voter than not counting tens of thousands of ineligible ballots due to a non legislative actor, SoS or county elections officials or local precinct officials, attempting to illegally assert powers that belong to the legislature.

Either the election procedure adopted by the legislature was followed for that ballot or it was not. If yes then it is a lawful ballot and the choices on that ballot should be tabulated as votes. If not then it doesn’t matter how many unlawful ballots exist, none should be tabulated as votes.

They may rule that Act 77 by the legislature for no excuse mail voting violates Pa. Constitution but not the US Constitution. Does Covid 19 give every voter an excuse due to disability? Crazy stuff.

Disenfranchising illegal voters with illegal ballots?

Crocodile tears?

The memory of this conservative majority on the Supreme Court will live forever, either for heroism or for cowardice.

People who think the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate any state election results really need to move to Oregon, where their favorite narcotics will be legal next year.

    CommoChief in reply to RandomCrank. | December 7, 2020 at 10:12 pm


    Maybe but maybe not. The PA question differs in that it is a statutory question: did non legislative actors such as the SoS or the state Supreme CT or local elections officials illegally and unconstitutionally make changes to election laws and procedures?

    That is an easy question for the court to answer.

    The other states have some elements of this but have evidentiary issues in presenting them. That isn’t as easy to resolve in one sitting.

    My take: SCOTUS will knock out PA electors and force the state to figure it out. The state could have the legislature appoint electors or the state could go back to the ballots and invalidate the ones not in compliance and re-tabulate the vote.

    Why do I buy this? SCOTUS will be seen as ‘doing something’. That something most likely doesn’t change the outcome of a likely Biden victory because unless it is coupled with actions in several other states the PA results are not enough to alter it.

    However, SCOTUS would be sending a very clear message, a shot across the bow, so to speak to every election official in the nation; don’t monkey around with election laws and procedures without legislative consent. To do otherwise is to risk your election being invalidated.

    Is this the outcome I want? No but given the alternative I will take it. Especially when combined with DoJ and some state LEO beginning to investigate the basic old fashioned election fraud that took place.

    At a minimum these would send a message that if caught, you get prosecuted for federal charges and federal time. The number of provable illegal ballots may not be sufficient to alter a result but every person and organization involved in ballot illegality must be investigated, prosecuted, charged and convicted.

    If our officials are unwilling to do so in provable cases then they can hardly expect the tens of millions who believe the election was stolen to willingly obey other laws or to willingly consent to be governed by these same officials.

    Once the previously law abiding, hard working, tax paying, military serving yoemanry become disillusioned to the point that they have no faith that their government will abide by it’s own duties, they may just go Gault or perhaps something altogether more incendiary.

      RandomCrank in reply to CommoChief. | December 7, 2020 at 10:32 pm

      I agree with your last paragraph, but I don’t think it will matter.

        CommoChief in reply to RandomCrank. | December 8, 2020 at 9:24 am


        From where I sit I am going to let it play out. Let’s stipulate a Biden win by hook or crook. It appears that the judiciary in many states are not interested in allowing discovery into the actions of elections officials based upon clear statistical anomalies, the timing of massive one sided changes in vote totals in the early morning hours of 4 November nor the sworn affidavits of poll watchers.

        Ok so now we know the playbook going forward.

        In 2022, the HoR is almost certainly going to revert to r control. First as a.result of redistricting which should be a minimum of 12 seats and the history of the party in power losing seats in the midterm, say 8 seats. That 20 seat pick up would give the r about 230 seats in the HoR v about 195 for d.

        The narrow majority in the Senate, no matter which party prevails in GA run off will focus attention on the 2022 Senate races. With no ‘orange man’ on the ballot the r likely maintain and pick up a couple seats.

        This means d/progs are stymied for 2023 and 2024, relying upon EO to move items forward. With the Trump judicial nominee on SCOTUS and more importantly at the Appellate and district level the process is more difficult. Same with EO during an entire Biden term.

        Hopefully the example of the types of r candidates fielded in 2016, 2018 and 2020 holds. Younger, diverse but liberty minded people who respect our nation. Trump will definitely have influence on this.

        That sets the.stage for 2024. Will it be Trump or a worthy successor? It sure as neck won’t be JEB! or another uni party elite stooge.

        Finally, as to folks going Gault or something more incendiary. As someone with experience training and leading foreign forces and educated in counter insurgency / insurgency strategy and tactics, who has put that education into practice on two continents. I will simply say that small forces, blending in with the local population, protected/hidden by that population conducting asymmetrical operations have the ability to punch well above their weight. See Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Malaysia, Algeria, Greece …..among many other examples.

          RandomCrank in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 2:29 pm

          What can anyone do but “let it play out?” As for ’22 or ’24, no one has a clue except for one thing: Those elections will be rigged too. Frankly, I blame the Rs as much as I blame the Ds. The election machinery has been creaky for decades; both parties were well-aware of it, and did nothing.

          I think the theft of the 2020 presidential election is a watershed moment, with possibly as much portent as the fall of the Roman republic. But I also think it’s a done deal. The institutional pillars in Washington, D.C. are so thoroughly eroded that I have no confidence in any branch of government, including even a majority-conservative Supreme Court.

          I agree with your final paragraph. To date, we’ve only seen far left-wing violence, with a handful of exceptions. If that changes, I expect that, as an operational matter, far right-wing violence will be much better organized and much more lethal. Once the vote has been taken away, it’s the logical next step.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 5:24 pm


          By let it play out I mean through the 2024 election cycle and into the potential term of the 2024 presidential winner.

          The alternative option would be to begin the dance immediately…. Post 2020 election.