Supreme Court Denies Review Of Pennsylvania Election Challenge As “Moot”
Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent, arguing the cases are not moot because, in Alito’s dissent, “the cases now before us are not moot. There is a ‘reasonable expectation’ that the parties will face the same question in the future.”
No surprise here. The Supreme Court has refused to accept a case challenging the Pennsylvania election result, on the basis that the mail-in ballot procedures were illegal, as “moot”.
The Order recites:
The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot. The motions of Thomas J. Randolph, et al. for leave to intervene as respondents are dismissed as moot. The motion of Honest Elections Project for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 20–542 is granted. The motion of White House Watch Fund, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 20–574 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
Justice Thomas, dissenting, argued the Court should take the case:
The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.
* * *
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
Justice Alito, joined by Gorsuch, also would have taken the case:
I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that we should grant review in these cases. They present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.
* * *
For these reasons, the cases now before us are not moot. There is a “reasonable expectation” that the parties will face the same question in the future, see Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S., at 463, and that the question will evade future pre-election review, just as it did in these cases. These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Called this months ago…. USSC had a chance to look at these issues and chose not to. Its disgusting.
So much for Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, right?
Exactly
Disgusting how they have shoved the shiva in President Trumps back
Probably why Cocaine Mitch recommended them
I find your comment offensive. innocent Cocaine has no way to defend itself from being used in association with Mitch… 🙂
Looks like a couple of more reliable lefty votes…or however their masters tell them to vote
The only thing proven moot is SCROTUM itself by their own hand.
Once they avoided the earlier cases as not having standing, you knew they were setting it up for this being declared “moot”.
Avoid hearing the case until after Biden is in office and then say “you’re too late”.
It was a Roberts’ fix – plain and simple.
Our descent into banana republic status continues apace. We’re fast approaching a time when very few options for recourse will be available.
Fast approaching??
I think it’s past.
What recourse do we have now?
Bloody recourse, when law and order breakdown, that is all that is left. How long before this goes critical?
Is it critical now??
The treasonous traitor china puppet biden and ho ho ho harris are doing things which weaken our safety.
Actions which put us all in danger.
I DON’T WANT BLOOD! I’m a 55 yr old grandmother!!! I want my grandchildren to have the same glorious Country in which I grew up!!!
I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.
Thomas Paine.
I believe this with all my heart!!!!
An unfortunate reality is that American freedoms only exist because people were willing to fight for them, and to die if necessary.
Democrats have been hijacked by Marxist fringe elements of society. It appears that they are moving to try and take permanent control, to end real democracy.
If that is the case, there may not be any peaceful solution.
Amen. 75 y/o grannie of eleven here. I never thought thus would happen so quickly.
@JoAnne…
Gramma to gramma here. Eleven! That is wonderful!! Congratulations!! I can’t imagine not doing everything I can to protect my sweet baby and the one about to be born!!
@Justice…
Patrick Henry. One of my favorite quotes. The FFs have so many great quotes. They really were exceptional individuals.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.
And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house?
Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.
Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love?
Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace.
The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
A speech I hold very dear to my heart.
Watch out for the incendiary words, folks. The walls have ears, and the other side is ruthless.
Parler went BLOOP! I’d hate to lose Legal Insurrection. 🙁
Yes please, let’s all go quietly to the death camps.
Yeah, what are you thinking of, quoting Patrick Henry, a founder? That’ll get you Gitmo.
Corrupt CONgress, corrupt SCOTUS, corrupt occupant in the WH…how long before things boil over?
Does the GOP feel that they are totally irrelevant yet? They’ve been telling their voters for years that the real prize is the SCOTUS and the judicial system. Both those institutions are proving impotent when faced with consequential decisions.
They are already irrelevant because they have no real differences in ideology from the Socialist Democrats.
Subotai Bahadur
Every single thing that has happened, happened because it was the desire of the GOP.
The GOP did not fight election fraud because the GOP wanted Trump gone, at any cost.
The GOP hand picked the crap supreme court selections and fooled Trump that they were constitutionally strict.
The GOP is the problem.
A lot of them, including SCOTUS justices, came from the Federalist Society – some of whom were bragging after the election about how they conned Trump into nominating fake conservatives.
Yes, it was a con. We now know. The big production by the left was all just theater orchestrated by the McConnells to fool all of us.
I did not hear of this bragging of which you speak.
Pray tell, where did you hear it? Do you have a link?
It was covered a couple of weeks ago. I thought I’d bookmarked it, but I can’t find it. Sorry.
I heard it as well, but did not save the source.
The Marxocrats AND THE RINO’s are the problem.
As I’ve stated…no reason to pack the court since it’s already 7-2 corrupt leftist bought and paid for garbage
Probably mostly 6-3. Gorsuch should generally side with the conservatives and Barrett is a cipher who will do what Roberts tells her to do.
c**ts.
I hate that word.
It’s obscene and vile.
Those people are feckless c**ts.
Dear fellow commenters: Do you use the n-word for blacks, g-word for Asians, or k-word for Jews when you comment here? If not, consider this: Many, if not most, women find the c-word to be as abhorrent, no matter how many asterisks you use. Don’t turn it into your go-to, all-purpose insult. Please, just stop.
Most often, I use d*ks. That OK with you sensitive guys here?
In fact, you just used the “n-word.” As you say, asterisks, or other forms of writing something with its stand-in, is no better than the word itself. So if “c**t” isn’t acceptable, neither is “n-word.”
Now we can see how ridiculous it gets. Because for me to write the above without giving any offensive to anyone, I would have had to have used stand-ins for both “c**t” and “n-word,” but then those stand-ins would have been no better than using the actual words!
We should never have set the “n-word” aside as off-limits. That concession helped to get us where we are today.
I despise that word and never use it.
Sometimes a vile word is applicable, though.
Which is why I made my comment.
Oaths taken and not upheld. The Country is dying, it’s being murdered before our very eyes.
It, unfortunately, is Biblical Prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes.
Vile words are never appropriate. They tend to only come out when there is nothing of substance left to say. If someone begins with such profanity, then you know they really have nothing of value to offer – it’s generally a good way to identify leftist sycophants, and other people who have stopped thinking. IMO.
Completely disagree.
I will call the people who are murdering my Country right before my eyes all the vile names I want.
Who began with profanity? No one.
We have been under assault for years and years.
You may have your opinion.
I will keep mine.
Maybe on your tombstone it will say you never uttered a vile word…. (not a wish, just an observation)
The crime was already committed so why look at it? What a novel approach they have. So Kavanaugh and Coney are basically going to be Roberts like creatures, either through fear or because of something in their backgrounds being held over their heads.
Honestly, Coney has too many vulnerable family members. I’m 100% positive that her family has been threatened, and it’s highly likely she’s taking that into account, rather than analyzing the cases on the merits.
It is a sad day for the republic. Without credible elections, the losing side is quickly going to decide that they’re no longer willing to play the game.
She’s just a corrupt hack…why excuse her with no evidence that’s she’s being blackmailed. If you hear garbage cans being knocked around in an alkey…think cats not zebras…Occam’s Razor.
If she couldn’t take the heat, she shouldn’t have accepted the nomination.
I have no sympathy!
Bullshit. She’s proven to be a corrupt marxist along with that serial rapist Kavanaugh.
They are both raping America.
What do you think those circus hearings and blistering attacks by democrats are for? They’re emotional hammers to get nominees once approved to spend their entire careers trying to show they’re not the “right wing zealots” they were accused of being by democrats.
Is that how other crimes will be treated?
Bank robbery? Oh the money’s already spent…so it’s moot, now.
Unimaginable!!!
“What difference, at this point, does it make?” — Shrillary SCOTUS
You got the quote exactly right! It bothers me (I know it’s petty) when people don’t get it right!
I can’t fathom that thinking. It’s like, “okay, I committed a crime, but it’s over now. why are you making such a big deal about it???”
Makes me want to tear my hair out!!!
The thinking is simple.
She says it in hopes of getting off the hook.
Yah…well sure he stole your car…and you have proof but he’s already using it as his own so there’s nothing that can be done…
I know. Why even have laws, then if people aren’t going to be held accountable?
The SCUSA Book Club has been reading Marlowe:
“Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”
The supreme court is not a criminal court, and this was not a criminal case. And the mootness rule is required by the constitution. Courts can only consider active controversies; if there is no active case to consider then the court must dismiss. I think the dissenters had the better argument, that even though it looks moot it’s not really. But it does look moot so the majority is not obviously wrong.
I am not a lawyer.
If the constitution means what the language says, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between States and some other disputes as described in Article three, section two. With original jurisdiction comes evidentiary responsibility.
The case has criminal aspects. In a ‘normal’ criminal case, the evidentiary phase is quite time consuming. We had only a couple of weeks or so to collect evidence, analyses the evidence, and present the evidence.
Oh, there was lots of evidence, but the only the most apparent evidence was noticed. The people committing the fraud were of course trying to conceal their crimes. They had greater or less success. If greater success, the crimes are more difficult to detect.
Is the argument that because evidence cannot be presented in the time allotted that we get no relief?
“I think the dissenters had the better argument, that even though it looks moot it’s not really. But it does look moot so the majority is not obviously wrong.”
In other words, the “majority” are all stupid.
I’m going with corrupt as no one breathing is that stupid.
The Supreme Court, after granting leave to file amicus briefs, refused to grant certiorari, and then dismissed as moot all motions to join the suit as a party. The Supreme Court gave no reason for its denial of certiorari, and certainly did not decide to refuse it because the case was moot.
The dissents show why the case was not moot and should have been taken up. But the Chief Justice, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Coney Barrett did not want to. The leftist voting block never was going to take it up as long as they could prevent the case from being heard.
Because there were not four Justices voting to grant certiorari, it was denied.
Sure didn’t apply to Roe v. Wade, as the baby was already born.
Uh, no idea what you mean, the court is not a “criminal court.” I think you’ll find it’s the court of last resort for all cases, civil and criminal. I think you’ll also come across another phrase in your future studies: capable of repetition yet evading review. Just like the present case. So. no, it isn’t moot. The dismissal was a cowardly political one, similar to many the Court has disgracefully made throughout its existence.
I expressed concern about Kav being too buddy with Roberts and some reporterette at a no-name right wing news site, tried to eviscerate me on twitter (no longer on there) over my gut feeling. And this article just proved me right. I’m concerned that our religious high schools, colleges, and universities have been compromised for a couple decades and its now just now beginning to show. Our kids no longer understand what the US is actually about.
Most ‘education’ is just indoctrination. We allowed it to happen. Not willingly, just going about our day to day lives.
Hardly novel. If the case really were moot then the court would have no authority to hear it. It would have the duty to dismiss.
In this case it’s not so clear whether it’s moot. This specific instance is, but there’s an exception to the mootness rule that says if the same situation is likely to come up again, and it won’t be possible to litigate it then, then it can be considered now. Especially in this situation where it’s not just likely to come up again for different parties, it’s likely to come up again for the same parties who are already before the court. So I think the dissenters have the better argument that it’s not truly moot. But the majority’s decision isn’t obviously wrong. In normal circumstances they would be right.
It’s so glaringly wrong it hurts my ears. Again, the dismissal was a cowardly act by a disgraceful and selfish institution.
Milhouse: This specific instance is, but there’s an exception to the mootness rule that says if the same situation is likely to come up again, and it won’t be possible to litigate it then, then it can be considered now.
It was probably mooted because the state has the power to change the rules before the next election — and probably will.
Once more, a court refuses to take any action to hear and judge the veracity of claims that vote fraud stole a major election. And, they have the audacity to claim the question is moot. How so? If thee charges are true, then not only the 75 million+ voters who voted for Trump have suffered harm, but, all voters have suffered potential future harm, as this could well happen again, in the future.
The problem faced, by the people of this nation, is that even a blind man can see that there is a very, very strong case that election fraud occurred and that there was sufficient fraud to actual change the outcome of the election. If such proves to be the case, the Court is faced with an even greater challenge, how to rectify the results of illegal actions. Anything that they do, will possibly, in some case probably, result in violent protests. They know what the progressive foot soldiers will do, they saw it play out all summer. They are oping that the Trump supporters will simply accept the situation, as is. Once it is publicly proven that significant vote fraud existed, then they face the same problems from the Trump supporters. So, they simply refuse to address the issue, at all. This will not end well, in the long run.
Not well, at all, but it will end … and it will not make it to “the long run” 🙂
My understanding is that the lawsuit pertains to the election laws and timing of mail-in voting. Not with regard to election fraud?
I do think its strange that they didn’t take the case though, it would be good to have clarity on these issues. The last thing we want is for it to happen again!
That is fraud. If the legislature didn’t make the law, it’s fraud. Per the Constitution that the legislature controls everything about presidential electors.
Respectfully where a law is considered unconstitutional characterising it as fraud isn’t accurate. It’s unconstitutional not fraudulent.
Splitting hairs. Fraudulent law or unconstitutional law????
No difference. When it comes to elections, it was fraud.
I notice you use a lot of British spelling in your posts Mark. Where are you trolling from?
“Where are you trolling from?”
Marxistville.
“Respectfully where a law is considered unconstitutional characterising it as fraud isn’t accurate. It’s unconstitutional not fraudulent.”
True. However, if evidence exists, which strongly indicates that the action was knowingly taken to commit a fraudulent act, then fraud may well exist.
The fact that the actions of PA were unconstitutional is what gives federal courts, including the SCOTUS, the authority to hear arguments that the results of the actions unlawfully made it possible for one candidate to win. If the actions were egregious enough, it might prove that the winner would not have won, without the improper actions being taken. If the SCOTUS had taken this case, the members would have had to make a determination of whether the actions, taken by PA, were constitutional, and therefor legal and they would have had to determine the proper redress. If that redress then disqualified the current winner from winning, we would have the dilemma of what to do next? By refusing to deal with these case before the inauguration, the courts have created a constitutional quagmire.
Dealing with these cases could have shown that there was insufficient evidence that the the irregularities changed the outcome of the election, or that organized fraud was involved. However, it appears that the courts were very concerned that the irregularities, if reversed, would change the outcome of the election and that the possibility was high that fraudulent activity would be proven.
So, they simply refused to hear the cases at all.
@Userp
Not trolling but in respect to your question born in the US but lived in the UK most of my life. Unless you count visiting family in the US.
No. Those are two separate issues. Don’t confuse them.
No, it is not fraud. Even if the court-ordered change was invalid (and it probably was), it isn’t fraudulent.
Yes, it was fraud, millhouse.
Why did they change the laws?
To allow fraudulent votes to be counted.
That is not fraud.
Sure, millhouse.
millhouse is always right….
The problem is that these are changes introduced by the executives and not the legislature.
The more often SCOTUS takes a dive, the faster it delegitimizes itself. 30 years ago, the response to “the court has ruled” was “ah well, that settles it.” Today it’s well on its way to becoming, “so what?”
Moot? Just another word for we don’t give a damn!
Can’t sue before, no standing.
Can’t sue during, no time.
Can’t sue after, moot.
And they wonder why we’re upset.
They don’t wonder. They don’t care.
Heads I win tails you lose.
Hahaha…my sister used to pull that on me as kids.
She also always got the wishbone out of the turkey at Thanksgiving.
If she got the short end, she ‘won.’
If she got the big end, she ‘won.’
My sister was in practice for being an elected official.
She was one for many years.
This SCOTUS is beyond worthless. It would have been right at home rendering opinions in the old Soviet Union – doing its job giving its imprimatur to whatever position the Party told it to. And this Amy Phoney Barrett is, sadly, the backstabbing idiot I warned people she seemed to be when she first recused herself from doing her job in the earlier go-round on the illegality of the Pennsylvania “election”.
….but allowing the examination of an ex president’s tax returns to go through in relation to what he might or might not be doing in a role he no longer has is not moot. The SC is completely and utterly corrupt
Every president in US history has given there tax returns except Trump. Given the elevations re stormy Daniels and Cohen’s information about campaign funds. That’s reasonable cause. Trumps response isn’t that he is innocent it’s that he is above the law.
Dismissing the hyperbole in your statement (more than half the presidents in US history served before any income tax), the vast majority of remaining presidents were career politicians, the growth of whose estates depended on their stewardship of public funds. Trump’s did not and never has.
That is wrong on at least two levels.
First, the tradition of surrendering tax returns during a campaign is exactly that – a tradition. I’m old enough to remember when it started, and I remember thinking “That’s a stupid precedent to set.” I praised Trump for bucking the (stupid) tradition and would have praised anyone who did so. I was happy to see a candidate for the office who had the balls to reject what is an intrusion into his personal life. (If there’s something wrong with his tax returns, it’s the IRS’s job to find it. In fact, the income tax returns of all seated presidents and vice presidents are audited by the IRS. https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns)
Second, the modern income tax (it is not the first income tax, and sufficiently different from the first tow to consider it entirely novel) wasn’t instituted until 1913. (The previous income taxes were instituted in 1861 and 1894. The former was repealed in 1872 and the latter found unconstitutional in 1895.) No president before 1913 could have possibly divulged an income tax return, and no president before the current tax ever divulged any such information concerning previous taxes. (Indeed, the income necessary to be liable for the previous taxes was probably higher than the income of most presidential candidates. This was even true of our current income tax, that originally taxed on the top 1% of earners.)
Corrections:
“different from the first two”
“only the top 1%”
Challenging it before is too early. Challenging it after is too late.
Cowards.
They’re not cowards, they are corrupt.
To the core, completely and irrevocably.
Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts stick a fork in the United States of America.
Side stepping–which is what the folks in black dresses do when a truly political dispute comes before them. All of those lower court “wins” on the Trump challenges to the election that the Dims touted were not on the merits. Rather they were on procedural grounds. Side stepping–the best number from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas is a fully developed judicial art.
They don’t side step when they want to create a new “right” for leftists.
For example, by the time her case reached the Supreme Court, the plaintiff “Jane Roe” had already given birth to the baby she had been seeking to abort in the Roe v. Wade case. Yet even though the issue in that case had been mooted, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case anyway, as the issues presented in the case were “capable of repetition yet evading review.”
The court could have done the same thing here, for the same reason. Yet they chose not to.
Correct, they are not “side stepping politics”, they are simply corrupt.
Disappointing, but not in the least surprising. I guess we’re going to have to figure out how to have our own backs, since no branch of government seems to be even remotely interested in that.
Yes – People have to unite and fight back. Cannot do it alone. Cannot be passive.
Yes, we have to unite.
How can we do that?
We don’t want to be accused of being *gasp* insurrectionists!
Can’t use ‘normal’ channels.
Group is forming to unite people in an economic union. Patriot dollars, so to speak.
What’s this???
It’s no secret, it’s been known for decades. We secure out freedoms with consecutive boxes:
soap box
ballot box
jury box
cartridge box
Note the Democrats have almost entirely deplatformed the first three of these and are now working on the fourth.
I also remind people of another adage: when the time comes to bury your guns, don’t. If you bury them, you will never dig them up. If it looks like time to bury them, it’s actually time to use them.
The adage is “If it’s time to bury your guns, it’s time to dig them up.”
“…on the basis that the mail-in ballot procedures were illegal, as “moot.”
I feel so much better now. At least it wasn’t the vaccuous pablum of ‘no standing.’
The “moot” was predicted in this piece posted on Trevor Loudon’s site last week — and it presents legal and faith-based arguments for how the color revolution / coup / steal can still be reversed, the “Biden-Harris Junta” removed, and so our Constitutional Republic restored.
Also, some mind-boggling information regarding the CCP threat:
https://www.trevorloudon.com/2021/02/we-had-a-color-revolution-under-color-of-law-but-we-can-still-reclaim-our-country/
It’s been quite awhile since I last read/studied the constitution concerning the presidential election. When last I did, I was left with the impression that what was conducted on 11/3 was a “poll”. The “election” was held on 1/6. The electors who cast ballots on 1/6 are not bound by the poll results of 11/3.
To complain that the results of the polling on 11/3 were invalid / fraudulent would seem to be moot since it is not a direct vote / election of the President and Vice President. Where the process would seem to have broken down was in the ignoring of the alternative slate of state electors when the EC votes were counted.
I suppose the USSC could take the position that the responsibility to work out issues with the 11/6 poll rests with each individual state which must be resolved by 1/6 when the EC votes are to be certified and counted. That on 1/6, whether we like it or not, and believe me I do NOT like it, there were 50 approved state EC vote certificates, that is the real election and official result, regardless of what transpired on 11/6.
I hate what happened. I will resist this lying, manipulating, conniving criminal administration in every way that I can, but I don’t think the USSC can provide any remedy to Trump or those of us who voted for him.
By prayer, I am appealing daily to a higher court. But I fear the lesson is only God is worthy of devotion and trust. Men and the things of man will always disappoint.
Interesting, but not accurate.
What occurred on 11/04 was indeed a poll, not a direct election, of the President of the United States. However, the “election”, on 01/06 before Congress, requires that the electors be chosen and certified, by the states, under legal standards set by the Legislatures of these states, prior to the election on 11/03. In a number of states, this did not happen.
In several states, such as Pennsylvania, the Executive and Judicial branches, changed the rules, not the Legislature. A violation of the US Constitution. Several states clearly violated election laws with regard to the supervised counting of ballots. Another violation of the US Constitution. Failure to adequately verify the eligibility of those casting votes, at the polls. A violation of state laws and the US Constitution. And so on.
Should the states have addressed these violations immediately? You bet your bippy. That they did not is, seemingly, another violation of the US Constitution. So, with mounting evidence that a violation of the US Constitution took place, whether at the state or federal level, took place. The SCOTUS has more than ample standing to hear the case for such a violation. That it did not do so, citing the case as moot, is exceedingly troubling.
Here is the big problem with all of these cases, which were declined due to standing or as being “moot”, they did not solve anything. Our entire society is based upon the tenet that we are a nation of laws. That these laws have to be followed, unless deemed unconstitutional. We set up an entire branch of government to decide these cases, the judiciary. When that branch of government chooses to be, essentially, out to lunch, when these case come before it, undermines our entire governmental structure and our society. When there is not legal avenue to the citizenry to be heard, then the citizenry is left with only extra-legal means of gaining a hearing. It appears that point may have been reached.
Great reply, Mac, thanks.
Courts are not doing what they were created to do. Hear cases and decide controversies between parties.
Parties are blatantly violating laws, state constitutions, and the US Constitution. The entity created to provide a remedy for these violations has abdicated that role.
Leaving The People with no recourse — no place to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Very dangerous for our Country.
Every safety mechanism has now been welded shut. Even a bad decision rendered after all sides make their case is far better than denying access. Avoiding the issue leaves no resolution. The judiciary has greatly eroded its value and integrity through the numerous cases tossed during this election cycle. Gutless would be an understatement. The “practice of law” is now hollow as the basic underpinnings of the rule of law are capricious .
Leaving citizens no avenue.
We have grievances!!
We have numerous, outrageous grievances!!!
We have Constitutional violating grievances.
History will repeat.
When seven empty seats in the court would do significantly less damage to the country than its current makeup, the justices may have to reconsider which faction they need to appease to get home from work safely every night. That’s not a threat, it’s a lesson we learn from history.
Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with this case.
Trump did not claim any of the rules changes in PA were unfair prior to election, lost with rules he knew of ahead of time and asked a court to disenfranchise a state while acknowledging every vote counted was from an eligible voter.
The lower court threw the case out of court and supreme court refused to hear it on grounds of no continuing controversy because the election the alleged unfair rules applied to had already passed.
I am certain that had the supreme court heard the case it would have been a 9-0 ruling against Trump.
He didn’t because he couldn’t. There were court challenges by others to the rules changes in PA. They were summarily dismissed for lacking standing, as nobody had been harmed by them yet.
randian: There were court challenges by others to the rules changes in PA.
Most of the rule changes at issue were in place before the election, and weren’t contested until after the votes were cast. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on such challenges before the election. The Republicans sued to throw out millions of ballots by people who had voted in good faith based on rules in place at the time. The U.S. Supreme Court wasn’t ever going to be a party to such an occurrence.
Thanks, Mac.
I don’t think my post above conveyed my intent as well as it could have. Between the poll on 11/3 and the election on 1/6, there’s a mountain of accusations, evidence of wrongdoing, et al, that was ignored by the signing of the election certificates of the 50 states – the 6 swing-states in particular. For legal and political “cover”, the USSC seems to be hanging their hat on the nail of presumption that the states had resolved to their own satisfaction all outstanding issues as evidenced by the signed certificates. That same type of rationale was used by Pence in claiming he couldn’t pick and choose states to count or between slates of dueling electors on 1/6. “The EC has spoken” seems to be their cover for refusing to act / hear the cases.
Their cowardice sickens me.
“Their actions belie those of people who actually support “free and fair elections,” but they are absolutely consistent with those that would be taken by perpetrators of an illegitimate, stolen election; one consummated with an illegitimate “inauguration.” We had officials pretending to conduct their duties in a legitimate manner: pretending to conduct a “free and fair election” and “certification of electors,” followed by an “inauguration” of the “winner.” Thus, performed under color of law – to again quote from that definition: “done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties.” — https://www.trevorloudon.com/2021/02/we-had-a-color-revolution-under-color-of-law-but-we-can-still-reclaim-our-country/
“Should the states have addressed these violations immediately? You bet your bippy.”
In some states, the legislatures started to try to dig into what happened. They weren’t in session, however, and so were unable to do much without the governors calling special sessions which they obviously didn’t want to do.
Half of the discontent is that there was likely so much cheating and seemingly no way to remedy it, and the other half is that the “opposition” party didn’t oppose in any way at all, and in fact helped wherever they could.
I like the addition of the passive violations of the Constitution to the “unconstitutional” argument. Very good stuff.
No. The event on Nov 3 was an election, not for president but for electors. The election for president happened on Dec 14.
The electors chosen on Nov 3 had all announced whom they intended to vote for for president, if they were chosen; in some states the law said they were bound by that promise, in others it didn’t. (I believe those state laws are unconstitutional, but when it came up nine out of nine supreme court justices disagreed with me, so that’s it.)
Without their states certifying to congress that they were the state’s electors, their “votes” could not be recognized or counted.
The only thing that could have happened on Jan 6 was for the vice president to decide that the electors whose votes were sent in were not their states’ true electors, and therefore refuse to count their votes. He could not have counted different votes instead of theirs. And under the (possibly unconstitutional) federal law governing the count, both houses would have separately voted on his action, and unless they both agreed with him it would have been invalid and the electors’ votes would have had to be counted anyway. If he’d challenged that law, it would have gone to the courts.
This is correct. What the court could have done, if it had agreed to hear the case, was to ensure that it won’t happen again next time.
Meanwhile, Roland Freisler smiles and nods approvingly from the depths… Who needs a Constitution??!!
9 scorpions in a bottle.
seal the bottle suffocate them all.
So the SCOTUS says barns burned to the ground smoke has cleared no need to call the fire dept now.
Well that’s interesting.
Don’t intervene prior to the election because the CT wants to defer to the State and/or the issue isn’t ripe.
Don’t intervene post elections but prior to certification and swearing in due to compressed time frame.
Don’t intervene post certificate and swearing in due to the issue being moot.
So, as a practical matter, States can do whatever they decide. Um ok. I doubt that the future challenges to redistricting of congressional districts will be treated so casually. Nor will challenges to election procedure and process regarding the identity or verification of residency or even the issue.of whether a particular person on a voter registration list is even alive.
So first they deny the Texas led action for lacking standing, then delay deciding on the other actions before them and now they are moot.
Not a lawyer, but how and when does a claim have merit for this court?
Republican Presidents have given us some real doozies over the years. Earl Warren being one from way back.
As I wrote months ago… “Social Club Of The United States”.
You can never make a wrong decision if you never make up your mind….The new motto for the Club.
The Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade decisions are widely recognized as two of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history (I am sure LI readers can supply other examples).
But at least in those two infamous cases the Court actually rendered a opinion. The Roberts “No standing to sue case is moot” court represents a new low in sloppy thinking and cowardice, making the Dred Scott and Roe decisions look like impeccably-reasoned legal decisions by comparison.
Seems to me the left is anxiously wanting to put down an insurrection. Voting and the courts are how we peaceably manage our differences. This works as long as everyone accepts that they are more-or-less fair, even if they don’t like every outcome. So now our self-anointed rulers are showing us that our votes will be ignored and invalidated by fraud, and the courts won’t bother to adjudicate the issue. The remaining options are either to acquiesce to their omnipotence or civil disobedience.
It’s like the left already knew the decision and has been working now to e?imitate the last option…The cartridge box both by purge and the HE 127 now green lighted by this.
None of the derelict Justices gave a reason for their denial of certiorari so we do not even know if they hide behind mootness (clearly refuted by Justice Thomas and Justices Alito and Gorsuch), or if they just assume elections in general and the executive and judiciary usurping the sole power of the legislature to determine the manner of the election in particular are so unimportant—as long as a Democrat wins the election, that is, of course—as to not warrant the Justices of the Supreme Court to invest some thought in securing what only is the most basic issue of self-governance.
Why Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett think they are entitled to join the leftist Justices in threatening the fabric of the republic is, to quote Justice Thomas, “baffling” and, frankly, unconscionable.
Not only do US citizens deserve better and expect more of the Supreme Court, they have every right to do so.
Not only did we decline to review this election, we decline in advance to audit any election.
So now state election officials can break their own election laws with impunity and without fear of repercussions…. Thank you,not-so-Supreme Court.
I might have misread that but I think only the motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner and of Thomas J. Randolph, et al. for leave to intervene as respondents were dismissed as moot. Reading between the lines of the dissents one can surmise that the Justices refusing to do their duty wanted to hide behind mootness, but since they could go further and refuse to give any reason at all they didn’t even invoke that outrageous pretext.
Which, to be clear, I find even more offensive than the “it’s moot now” excuse would be.
Don’t bother until after we won’t do anything about it…
I guess that whirlwind thing is real after all.
This reminds me of a classic comment by Benjamin Franklin during the constitutional convention. A delegate had given a very passionate speech on why a President should not be able to be removed from office. As he left the podium to go back to his chair, Ben commented to the person next to him “So I guess the only way to remove a president is to assassinate him.“ The delegate stopped, went back to the podium, and then announced at his opinion has changed.
I feel the same way about this. The only answer is secession, and it needs to be started as soon as possible. Perhaps if the other side sees our seriousness, saner heads will prevail.
When the institutions put in place to address the illegality or unconstitutionality of actions fails…the options left are war or secession.
We’ve seen what happens when a president refuses to acknowledge the Rights of states to leave a union they freely joined.
I’m from the South! I’ve always supported the Right of states to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it.
Nor does the Constitution delegate authority to the federal government to prevent states from leaving.
Is this what we want? Or is it just the threat??? You know that foreign enemies would be all over any state which tries to secede.
The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the final authority on the interpretation of Pennsylvania law, ruled under the voting-rights provision of the state’s constitution to extend the deadline. As noted in Thomas’s dissent, the ballots at issue would not change the election result.
Zach,
Are you arguing that a State Supreme Court decision is not able to be reviewed by a Federal CT? Your statement that
‘…is the final authority on interpretation of (State) law..’ certainly seems to suggest that.
He’s arguing that the state supreme court has precedence over the Constitution.
CommoChief: Are you arguing that a State Supreme Court decision is not able to be reviewed by a Federal CT?
The federal court can review Pennsylvania law under the U.S. Constitution, but only if there is a specific federal issue raised.
Zach
Just wanted to have you clarify that since the rulings of a State Supreme Court can be reviewed by a Federal CT that the rulings issued by a State Supreme Court are definitely not the ‘final authority’ in any way.
Every court is supposed to ensure that it’s rulings don’t run afoul of the US Constitution. When they do not, as in this instance, they can be reviewed.
If the SCOTUS had declined to grant cert due to jurisdiction your argument might hold. They dismissed a case due to a 6/3 decision on whether the case was moot not for lack of jurisdiction.
CommoChief: Just wanted to have you clarify that since the rulings of a State Supreme Court can be reviewed by a Federal CT that the rulings issued by a State Supreme Court are definitely not the ‘final authority’ in any way.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the final authority on interpretation of Pennsylvania law. The U.S. Supreme Court can deem that law — as interpreted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.
In any case, the ballots at issue would not change the election result.
The commie Zach is a marxist POS paid to come on here and spread the horseshit.
Keep this in mind.
The PA supreme court did NOT “interpret” any law. It made law. Period.
That is a federal issue since the federal government is charged with insuring the people a Republican form of government in every state – which means the Rule of Law, at the minimum, which the State Supreme Court violated in the most egregious and insane way.
Of course, THE SCOTUS did the same thing with the laughable BarkyCare decision … so we’re in a situation where the Rule of Law has been made a total mockery of at all levels.
The only answer, at this point, is for a national divorce, so those of us who believe in the Rule of Law and our COnstitutional system can be rid of these America-hating neo-French Revolutionary nihilists who just want to burn the whole country down.
That’s not true the justices amended the deadline on the basis of the state constitution making elections ‘fair and equal’. That gave them latitude to change the deadline in the circumstances of a pandemic and and expected increase in mail in ballots.
The State Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of state law, under the STATE constitution. However, in this case we have a very real question as to whether the actions of the Executive and Judicial branches of the Pennsylvania state government violated the US Constitution, which requires that election laws be set by the state Legislature. This gives the federal courts jurisdiction to hear the case.
So, basically, the PA Supreme Court can not rule upon whether the actions taken by the state violate the US Constitution. The SCOTUS can. But, refused to do so.
With respect the supreme court has ruled on a number occasions that the legislature as provided by the constitution in this context is inclusive of the courts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-1314#writing-13-1314_OPINION_3
The independent state doctrine you espouse would have wide ranging impacts on the way the state’s function as this is contrary to how they have run for generations.
I actually read the opinion that you posted and nowhere in there did I see any mention that the Executive or the Judiciary was part of the Legislature, except for the Govenor’s veto power.
In PA, the governor, and later the courts, actually rewrote the statutes governing mail-in ballots, without input from the Legislature. Inn other words, they violated state law, the state constitution and the US Constitution.
“The Arizona Legislature’s complaint alleged that “[t]he word ‘Legislature’ in the Elections Clause means [specifically and only] the representative body which makes the laws of the people,”
The above is from the link
Uhhh, that is not what you stated above, You said: “With respect the supreme court has ruled on a number occasions that the legislature as provided by the constitution in this context is inclusive of the courts.” Then you post a quote from the decision which says just the opposite. So, which is it?
Actually, in the middle of this rambling, rather confusing decision, which was about redistricting, by the way, the court actually said that the Governor is part of the Legislative process, though not part of the Legislature, due to his authority to veto legislation. The courts are not mentioned as having any part in the legislative process.
Mac45: Then you post a quote from the decision which says just the opposite.
The Supreme Court in the Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission decision found that legislation doesn’t include just the legislative body, but the entire legislative process. In this case, legislation to remove the authority for redistricting bypassed the legislative body entirely, and was enacted through initiative and referendum in accordance with the Arizona constitution.
Two hundred years of using power they stole, you mean.
Two hundred years of unconstitutionality.
The federal government almost immediately began violating the Constitution after it was ratified.
Responding to the post before where you stated “That’s not true the justices amended the deadline on the basis of the state constitution making elections ‘fair and equal’.”
You said yourself that the PA justices “amended” (i.e., changed) the deadline set by the state legislature. Regardless of the cause under the state constitution, the “amendation” violated the US Constitution that authorizes only state legislatures to make the laws and rules for federal elections, and no other person, entity, or pretended authority. There is no exception under the Constitution that permits the invocation of the what is exclusively the legislature’s authority to make laws and set rules for federal elections.
Dave…
People get confused.
State legislatures have complete control over the manner for choosing presidential electors.
People think that because state legislatures have chosen a popular election as the manner, that election falls under the control of entities which control other elections.
They are wrong.
The manner — a popular election — is still completely controlled by state legislatures.
Unfortunately, people have placed a false importance on the manner. People have falsely elevated this manner to some kind of ‘right of the People.’
It’s wrong. They are wrong.
I’m not making this comment to educate you, I know you understand all of this.
😉
DaveGinOly: Regardless of the cause under the state constitution, the “amendation” violated the US Constitution that authorizes only state legislatures to make the laws and rules for federal elections, and no other person, entity, or pretended authority.
State legislatures are creatures of the state constitution, and the legislative process includes not just the legislative body, but the governor, and the courts. The state can’t pass an election law that violates the state constitution; and like all laws, election laws are subject to judicial review under the state constitution.
@zach…
You got confused.
State legislature.
Legislative process.
Two different things.
Try not to conflate the two.
lgbmiel: You got confused.
State legislature.
Legislative process.
Two different things.
The legislature is what the state constitution says it is. See Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
@zach.
non answer.
The state legislature is not the same thing as the legislative process.
The US Constitution specifies state legislatures as the sole authority for selecting the manner.
One is an entity, the other is a process which includes several entities.
They are not the same.
Nor is the manner for selecting presidential electors similar to other elections.
lgbmiel: non answer.
It was a direct answer, just one you don’t like.
lgbmiel: The US Constitution specifies state legislatures as the sole authority for selecting the manner.
In Arizona, a referendum, allowed under the Arizona constitution, not only bypassed the legislative body to enact new election law, but actually took the power of redistricting away from the legislative body. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature is what the state constitution says it is.
@zach.
You are talking about two different things and saying they are the same.
Elections and the manner for choosing presidential electors.
Redistricting is not choosing presidential electors.
The US Constitution is supreme over state constitutions. All state constitutions must ensure a republican form of government. Which means the laws are made by a legislature elected by the people. Not a redistricting committee.
lgbmiel: Redistricting is not choosing presidential electors.
U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”
lgbmiel: The US Constitution is supreme over state constitutions.
That’s right, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the state legislature is what the state constitution says it is. For instance, the governor may have a veto over election legislation.
lgbmiel: All state constitutions must ensure a republican form of government.
Yes, and elected legislative bodies, governors, courts, and direct initiatives can all be part of a republican form of government.
lgbmiel: Which means the laws are made by a legislature elected by the people. Not a redistricting committee.
In Arizona, the people directly voted for a redistricting committee. The Supreme Court upheld their power to do so because the state legislature is what the state constitution says it is.
@zach…
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
In your very own comment.
As the legislature may direct.
Not a redistricting committee.
Not a governor.
Not a court.
Not anyone else.
If the arizona state legislature picked a popular election as the manner, the state legislature still has total control over that specific election.
The legislature doesn’t give up any control just because other elections are controlled by other entities.
You keep posting this meaningless, immaterial state
legislature is what the state constitution says it is.
You keep saying that…I don’t think it means what you think it means…
Redistricting is not choosing presidential electors. It is not a direct delegation of authority to a very specific body.
lgbmiel: If the arizona state legislature picked a popular election as the manner, the state legislature still has total control over that specific election.
And what is the “state legislature”? According to the Supreme Court, it’s what the state constitution says it is. You may not like it. You may disagree. But that’s the binding decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the U.S. Constitution.
@zach…
BS!!
Nothing binding about any opinions from a court.
States can and should ignore them.
They have no authority except to state their opinion.
The judiciary is the weakest branch. It can’t do anything to back up their opinions. It wields neither the sword nor the purse.
lgbmiel: Nothing binding about any opinions from a court.
Tell that to the marshal enforcing a court order. In any case, if you reject the authority of the court to rule on matters of the law and the constitution, then you are rejecting the long-established system of jurisprudence in the United States. You may not like it. You may disagree. But your position is not consistent with actual practice.
Long standing unconstitutionality you mean.
You don’t recognize those words???
Damn, no one knows the Founders…hmmm….
@zach…
I recognize only the authority Constitutionally delegated to the courts.
To hear cases and decide controversies. They issue opinions.
I will not recognize any usurped authority they attempt to use.
They have no special powers to decide what’s Constitutional or not.
lgbmiel: They have no special powers to decide what’s Constitutional or not.
Well, over two hundred years of jurisprudence disagrees.
From Article VI, US Constitution (emphasis added):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
What this means is that the judges in PA were bound by the Constitution’s rule authorizing only the state legislature to make rules for the presidential election within the state, even if something in the state’s constitution or laws says otherwise. The judges in PA had no authority to authorize any changes to an authentic act of the state legislature when that act made the rules for the state’s conduct of a presidential election pursuit to the express and exclusive delegation of that authority to the state legislature by the US Constitution.
mark311 wrote:
That’s not true the justices amended the deadline on the basis of the state constitution making elections ‘fair and equal’. That gave them latitude to change the deadline in the circumstances of a pandemic and and expected increase in mail in ballots.
My rebuttal above was directed towards Zach, but it responds to mark311 as well. The state’s constitution has no standing (Article VI’s “notwithstanding”) when it collides with the US Constitution. In this case, any such authority as mark is citing (above) is colliding with Article II, section one.
DaveGinOly: What this means is that the judges in PA were bound by the Constitution’s rule authorizing only the state legislature to make rules for the presidential election within the state, even if something in the state’s constitution or laws says otherwise.
That is incorrect. As the Supreme Court has determined, the legislative process includes not just the legislative body. For instance, election law can’t be enacted without reference to the governor’s legislative powers. And if the state constitution allows, such as in Arizona, a referendum can bypass the legislative body entirely. See Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
A state legislature is a creature of the state constitution; whether it is one body or two, how the power is distributed, the role of the governor, the allowance for referendums, etc. Election law is subject to judicial review like any other legislation.
The Constitution doesn’t mention the “legislative process,” it mentions only the legislature itself. This is the only body that has constitutional authority to make the rules for appointing electors. Although the governor can veto and the state courts have review, both rejections must return the process to the legislature so that it, and only it, makes the rules. Otherwise the rules are from another body, and therefore unconstitutional.
The rules of some states were changed by executive officers (secretaries of state). They are certainly not even part of the “legislative process,” because the governors are the only executive officers involved directly in that process.
DaveGinOly: The Constitution doesn’t mention the “legislative process,” it mentions only the legislature itself.
What is the state legislature? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is what the state constitution say it is. State legislatures are creations of the state constitution.
DaveGinOly: The rules of some states were changed by executive officers (secretaries of state).
That would depend on how the law was written, and how much latitude they were given under the law, as well as consistency with the state constitution. That’s a matter for courts to adjudicate.
Got you Zach. You’re usually somewhat on-point, but this response is completely off-point.
Concerning your first point, do you seriously believe that Pennsylvania defines its “legislature” in any way other than how that word is commonly understood? If so, please cite how and where this special definition exists. You know it doesn’t. You know as well as everyone else here that when the US Constitution refers to a state’s “legislature” it means exactly what it says and that there is not a single state that defines its “legislature” in any other way. Your argument also presumes that by defining its legislature in some other manner than commonly understood would alter the meaning of the word in the Constitution. That’s not a good argument. The language of the Constitution would take precedence over any “redefining” a state may make of its apparatus of government because the meaning of the language in the Constitution was fixed at the time of its adoption. (Nobody signs a legal document with an understanding that the meaning of the words can change over time.) To do otherwise would mean the US Constitution would have a different meaning, and a different effect, from one state to another depending on how each state defines itself. That argument is a non-starter.
Your second point – just plain wrong. Dates for elections, ballot-collection, and counting are set by statute in every state, precisely for the purpose of preventing manipulation of the system as we saw in the election. Show me that the law of any one of the contested states (MI, WI, PA, GA, AZ, NV) allows an executive officer to change the dates specified by statute. What would be the purpose of setting dates in statute if some authority other than the legislature could change the dates? (It may be possible to contract a deadline, but not extend one. If statute sets a deadline of “by the 20th day after the election” a state official may set an earlier deadline, but a later deadline would violate the statute.) You’ve got nothing but smoke.
DaveGinOly: do you seriously believe that Pennsylvania defines its “legislature” in any way other than how that word is commonly understood?
What matters is how the term is understood with regards to the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 2.
DaveGinOly: If so, please cite how and where this special definition exists.
See Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The legislature asserted that only they could enact election law. The Arizona constitution allows for the referendum to pass laws, meaning a popular initiative acts as a legislative process.
DaveGinOly: The language of the Constitution would take precedence over any “redefining” a state may make of its apparatus of government because the meaning of the language in the Constitution was fixed at the time of its adoption.
And yet nobody doubts that governors are part of the legislative process, as according to state constitutions.
DaveGinOly: Show me that the law of any one of the contested states (MI, WI, PA, GA, AZ, NV) allows an executive officer to change the dates specified by statute.
You might actually provide a specific example. As for Pennsylvania, most of the rule changes were enacted by the legislature.
You are correct the State’s constitution determines what body is the State’s legislature. They decide if it is once chamber body, a bicameral Parliament, or whatever else they can come up with as long as they still have a republican form of government. That does not mean that they can decide that “legislature” is the judiciary or the executive branch, whatever names or forms those may have under the State’s constitution.
The Constitution says “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”, not “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as its laws may direct”. The text is somewhat important. While, for example, a state may give the executive veto power, that does not make the executive part of the legislature. Nor do the Courts become legislature because they can declare laws unconstitutional.
felixrigidus: While, for example, a state may give the executive veto power, that does not make the executive part of the legislature.
And yet the governor can veto a bill concerning elections.
And a court can declare the law unconstitutional. But that doesn’t make either the Governor or the court “the legislature.”
The fallacy behind all your arguments is the purposeful conflation of “the legislature” with “the legislative process.” We’re not going to let you get away with it.
@Henrybowman
Except that the supreme court does conflate the two in its reading an understanding of the term Legislature
Which is irrelevant if the US constitution requires the electors to be chosen exactly as the legislature provided. The state constitution cannot change that.
Thomas is blowing smoke. He can’t possibly know that, because the ballots at issue were deliberately mixed in with regular ballots, in violation of SCOTUS’ order to keep them segregated, to prevent examining or counting them.
randian: Thomas is blowing smoke. He can’t possibly know that, because the ballots at issue were deliberately mixed in with regular ballots, in violation of SCOTUS’ order to keep them segregated, to prevent examining or counting them.
The ballots were segregated.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/10/pennsylvanias-top-election-officer-says-just-10-000-ballots-were-received-after-nov-3-435972
The government of the Former United States of America is no longer fit for purpose. Our votes are meaningless and our courts are useless. They have locked themselves up behind a tall fence and 20K troops.
That fence does not seem particularly sturdy or intimidating…
Note the underlying allegation in this case wasn’t voter fraud, so even if it had been brought in a much more timely manner, gotten to the supreme court and won a 9-0 verdict it wouldn’t have overturned the PA election.
It could have reversed the law back to what the state legislature said it was instead of the (elected) supreme court of PA but considering the question of rules for an election that is already over moot is not an unreasonable decision.
Lying about what he alleged in his lawsuits to the public while telling a different story in a court of law was always a horrible thing for Trump to be doing.
You are missing the point.
By declaring that the issue was moot, the Court essentially said that the court would not entertain any challenges to an election which was already over with. It was not a case where the Court heard the case and decided whether the actions of PA were constitutional or not. If ruled to be unconstitutional, then the question of what action should be taken to redress the situation. If the action was to eliminate the votes from the questionable ballots and the removal of these voted did not change the outcome, this is fine.
However, if the Court had heard the case and decided, correctly that these changes in the voting regulations were unconstitutional and chose to eliminate the affected votes in PA, it would have established a president that would have affected ALL the states. And, if the same remedy was applied, this would most likely have made Trump the winner. And the court just did not want to go there.
Do you have a number on the votes affected nationwide?
No one does. That is the whole point. Until someone in authority actually makes that determination, we will never know for sure.
But, all that really needs to happen, if most of the improper, illegal and outright fraudulent votes benefited Biden, then it is likely that only 4 or 5 state results would need to change to a Trump win to make him the winner.
Which is extremely unlikely. No offence but I can’t see many ballots being changed on the basis you describe.
In any case the election is over and Biden is sworn in. Maybe time to let it go.
@mark
Time to let it go???
The wrong person is in the WH!
It was a CRIME!
Are you really saying you don’t understand???
No…we will never let it go.
The presidency was STOLEN from the entire Country! It was STOLEN from over 80 million people!!
Why do you think we should let it go?
@lgbmiel
Simply because there is no evidence of fraud. Trumps legal team attempted to present evidence on a number of occasions and the evidence was found to be riddled with errors, not credible and generally pretty poor. The legal arguments have failed, the evidential arguements have failed. There simply isn’t a case to be made for fraud.
The Democrats didn’t let it go for 12 years (eight of them under Bush). Now we won’t let it go, and they can damn well shut up about it.
@mark
Still claiming no evidence of fraud?
That’s outright idiotic.
Are you an idiot?
Have you not read about NH? Dominion shaved 6% off every republican candidate. 300 votes. Every republican candidate. Fact.
Stop with the outrageous dismissed court cases. The courts were WRONG!
You know as well as EVERYONE does that there was fraud!
You just look even more ridiculous than you are when you keep trying to deny it!
@lgbmiel
I’m afraid the reference to the Dominion machines isn’t true. The expert testimony indicted no issues with fraud on the machines.
The courts assessed the evidence and on a bipartisan basis rejected the claims. They weren’t wrong they just followed the evidence and logical arguments. They could only draw conclusions on what was presented to them and what was presented didn’t amount to much.
That is not a fact.
1. It had nothing to do with Dominion.
2. Whatever it was that happened in that town (unknown at this point) took votes away from all but one of the Democrats too. 7 out of 8 candidates lost votes, 1 candidate (a Democrat) gained votes, but not enough to win.
@Millhouse.
Yes it was Dominion.
They own the intellectual property.
Still with the ‘not enough to win’ crap!
The machines took votes away!!!
That is fraud!!!
You keep trying to deny this, it’s fact!!!
This was just one instance that was found out!
How many more were not????
6%
You’re absurd.
@mark.
Flat out wrong.
You aren’t keeping up.
You should read more.
Windham, NH.
Dominion shorted each republican candidate 300 votes.
You didn’t answer my question…are you an idiot????
No you aren’t keeping up citing one ongoing case in one district where there is a discrepancy without any understanding of what happened. Sorry no that’s hardly going to change my mind.
In any case the trouble is there have been so many videos or witness statements or expert reports that have turned out to be total rubbish.
Your going to have to do better
Oh and btw it was a AccuVote machine and it messed up all the numbers for all the candidates including several democrats. Given that the original tally ment a republican won then as a result of the recount they got additional votes I don’t see that as good evidence of fraud.
You didn’t answer my question…are you an idiot …
Well I’m slightly biased in that regard don’t you think? And what exactly would it achieve by saying whether I’m clever or not? Its not that I’m clever , I know many who are more so it’s that I actually think about what’s presented and look to see both sides.
If you have a source that sets out a coherent case for fraud then sure I’ll look at it.
@mark
That was just ONE case.
Dominion Voting Systems owns the intellectual property of the AccuVote machines used in New Hampshire.
Thanks, you are an idiot.
Yes, it does. So what? It’s completely utterly irrelevant, and it’s dishonest to even cite it.
No offense lgbmiel I’ve been through so many specific examples which that out to be a crock of shot that it gets a bit tiresome. As millhouse has pointed out so what.
Do you actually have a source that sets out a coherent case for election fraud?
@Milhouse I know what you will say that there isn’t evidence because of the way it’s run/organised/implimented. We disagree on that which is fine. I’m tired of rubbish election fraud arguments. I want a source that I can read and go through point by point. It’s strange to me that no one is able to provide one given the level of confidence expressed in the idea of election fraud.
@millhouse.
So what??
Cause you said it wasn’t dominion!
It is dominion!
A crime was perpetrated on this Country!!
You still try to deny the machines had anything to do with it.
@mark..
All offense intended….
A massive crime was committed against this Country. It’s still going on.
Literally everything is at stake here.
You choose to be willfully blind.
No use for you.
@lgbmiel
There is no evidence thus far to suggest that the voting machines caused or resulted in fraud.
Your own example still resulted in the Republicans winning both before the count and after a recount where a Democrat complained about the result. That logically points to a non-fraud related error. Additionally these were different machines used compared to other states so its not representative of a wide spread issue either.
You still haven’t provided any evidence, the example you cited has been discussed.
As I’ve said before you are welcome to point me to a source that sets out the case. You have to bear in mind that there were widespread erroneous statements made about the election and correspondingly there are many fact checking cites debunking them. That sits along side export reports debunking claims, and court judgements that paint a picture of ineptitude and falsehood driven narratives from the Trump Legal Team. There is no election fraud site as far as I’m aware that sets out a case for election fraud, please do correct me if I’m wrong.
In conclusion your claim that a crime has been committed is rather spurious.
I can see that you think there is fraud and respect that but I’m not going to change my mind based on an emotional plea
@mark…
Like I posted.
You are willfully blind.
I do believe you are what is called a useful idiot.
No, it isn’t, and every time you say it is you are a liar.
Dominion owns AccuVote’s intellectual property. So ****ing what? The fact remains exactly the same; the machines were Accuvote and not Dominion. Dominion had absolutely nothing to do with it. Its ownership of the IP is irrelevant, and citing that fact as if it were relevant is dishonest.
And there’s no evidence that the machines did anything. Nobody knows what caused the error. The machines malfunctioning in some mysterious way is only one possibility. Human incompetence is another. But whatever did happen was not partisan, because it affected all candidates, Democrat and Republican. And it didn’t affect the result.
Yes it is and every time you say it’s not you are a liar.
Where did I say it was partisan??
I said it was fraud.
I said the machines shaved votes!!
I said this was only one instance that was caught!
How many others out there that we don’t know about?
Saying it’s not dominion is like saying blm is not soros.
liar.
6% is enough to change everything.
@lgbmiel
You throw a lot of insults around bit haven’t actually addresses any of the points made.
As Milhouse rightly points out the machines fault hasn’t had a determined cause nor did it throw the election. Indeed the Democrats own actions highlighted error to there own detriment. I’m not sure how many ways I can phrase that to make the point. It does not make sense that it was fraud given the democrats actions highlighted the error.
Further Milhouse correctly states that the machines are under the IP of Dominion they are physically and digitally different products to the ones used elsewhere. That means that whatever errors they might have aren’t shared.
Calling people liers isn’t very nice nor is it appropriate in context. No one’s lied in this discussion.
You seem to think that throwing insults is the way forward but to be honest it really isn’t. There isn’t a need for it. I’m sure Milhouse can take it as can I but it’s not helpful to your argument.
Mac, they are not missing the point, Danny and Mark311 are paid democrat party shills.
And you are a serial killer and rapist, a drug dealer, and a remover of tags from mattresses.
And you are a enabler of the paid commie shills.
Ultimately the lawsuit concedes that the winner of a majority of ballots cast by eligible voters won the state.
There is no way for that to have gotten any supreme court judge signing on.
Obama got a lot of 9-0 cases where all of the judges who agreed to hear the case ruled against him.
By ruling the case moot it ruled that you can’t contest elections on the grounds laid out in the complaint.
You could contest elections on other grounds as laid out in the very decision that tossed the case out of court that was being appealed.
Nobody ruled this case moot.
If the process for appointing electors was in any way unconstitutional (and I agree it was), then the electors were seated by an unconstitutional process. They should never have been seated at all. The state was responsible for running the election according to its laws and it did not. Once that happened, there was no way to fix the problem, because a violation of the Constitution had already occurred. (Any post-election fix would likely have been in violation of the Constitution as well, because it would have still seated electors who were not chosen according to state law, but rather by some post-election ad-hoc compromise.) If the correct decision on this situation disenfranchised the voters of PA (and it would have disenfranchise all of them, and not merely Trump or Biden voters, because neither candidate would have received the state’s electoral votes), that’s a matter for the state’s citizens to take up with the state government. (Although it would probably be too much to ask that they consider curing the problem by making the elections more secure, rather than less.)
Professor,
I will understand if you choose not to answer this, but I figure I’ll try.
Your career is educating wanna-be lawyers in the law. The concept being that the laws under the consent of the governed are the best way for a society and culture to resolve the inevitable disputes that arise between people.
We see that laws are only applied based on political standing. Voting is useless because it is those who count the votes who hold the power. Further that the Executive is above the law. The Legislative branch is as useless as the Roman Senate after the rise of the Roman Empire. And the courts have neither loyalty to nor obedience to the law or the Constitution.
In the absence of a social contract, which is where we are, why should individuals and groups submit to or obey the law?
Subotai Bahadur
I think even Justice Thomas’s understanding of the situation is too limited in scope. He puts some emphasis on the fact that the number of votes counted during the extension probably didn’t affect the race. But this isn’t relevant for two very good reasons.
First, the rules and limits concerning elections are, in part, created to prevent fraud and other forms of cheating. When the rules and limits are ignored, this increases the potential for cheating. Fraud and cheating are to be discouraged at all times, and not only when their levels become such that they threaten to influence the results of an election because any level fraud or cheating threatens the integrity of the vote.
Second, if the rules under which a federal election is held are not those set by the legislature of the state, the rules themselves violate of the Constitution, making the entire federal election result within the state void. It doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) matter who wins or whether or not there was any fraud or cheating (i.e., it shouldn’t matter if the amount of fraud or cheating wasn’t enough to tip the results). An act of a state (in particular, an act of the state’s secretary of state) that is done in violation of requirements set by the US Constitution is entirely void and the results of that act are null and invalid. No electors should have been seated from Pennsylvania, as they were all seated under rules that directly contravened the US Constitution.
I’m inclined to agree that the case should have been heard. Gaining some confidence in the election is going to be a tough battle. Although I think perhaps the court is the wrong forum. I’m tending towards some kind of commission thoroughly investigating and assessing every aspect.
Your remedy seems quite onerous. Disenfranchising voters on that scale is pretty harsh given the nature of the change in legislation (ie 3 day deadline affecting a few thousand votes)
It’s not my remedy, it’s been done before. It’s precedent. It’s also the law. A slate of electors can be rejected if the electors have not been “lawfully certified.” (3 USC Sect. 15)
If a slate of electors is appointed in any manner other than that designated by the Constitution, it was appointed unconstitutionally and therefore can’t be “lawfully certified” (because the process broke the law). Any apparent “certification” is of no validity under well-established principles concerning unconstitutional processes and actions (i.e.< they are nullities and of no lawful effect).
Interesting thank you
So, next time I get a jury summons, I can just tell the judge and lawyers during jury selection that the case is moot because the alleged crime has already been committed, and what’s done is done? Defense counsel should like that.
No, you can’t, and you know it damn well. You write as if mootness doctrine is something they just invented now, when in fact it is fundamental to our entire system of justice, and is required by the constitution.
A court cannot hear a case that is moot. If a case is moot there is no live controversy. The only question here is whether this case really was moot. It appears to be, but the dissenters say that appearance is deceiving. I think they’re right, but it’s not obvious.
Having read all of the above, I believe Zach is 100% correct.
Then swivel your chair around and give him a Victory Cookie.