20
Comments (23)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

Turn PA blue, and I think its spot on.

1
GoldenPotatoRequiem [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Never!

1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

Biden won PA 2 weeks ago, circuit court declared him the winner, and followed up with another law basically making anonymous ballots legal. That said, it will be contested, but on Saturday November 7th (Election day as deemed by circuit court) Biden officially takes PA (until courts decide otherwise, and that is complicated, majority or not).

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
GoldenPotatoRequiem [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

You have no clue what you’re talking about. They’ll just send the case back to the court and with ACB she’ll overturn the policy. It’s pretty simple.

1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even Scalia was not that predictable. This is not some simplistic thing, YEAH, YEAH trump put PEPE on the court. No, its vastly more complicated, as I said earlier, it could come down to some sort of 1812 bullshit coal miner rebellion precedent that firmly establishes the state of PA's right to decide when the election is over. You could go right next door to another state, and SCOTUS could rule differently, in fact thats exactly what happened in WI.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

The PA late ballot count case they just kicked back. I have heard nothing about that. Lots of stuff going to SCOTUS regarding other states, but I have heard 0 about either PA recieving ballots until the 7th, or getting rid of signature validation retirement. SCOTUS ruled for WI, that they could not receive late ballots, but the opposite is true in PA

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

SCOTUS is weird. They let PA get away with getting rid of voter signature matching requirement in PA, and did the inverse in WI. Its not as simple as who we have on the bench and who put them there.