Well said. Act 77 is a straight forward case of an unconstitutional state law and a violation of equal protection constitutionally at the federal level.
The state courts can and will pull BS just like Bush v Gore in 2000 but when it gets to SCOTUS, the BS will stop.
Yes Roberts is a double-agent, Trump-hating POS but it's highly likely IMO that SCOTUS goes 5-4 against PA Act 77 on at least one of those constitutional grounds. The next problem though is, what is the relief?
SCOTUS should invalidate all of their mail-in ballots leaving the PA state legislature the decision to either let Trump win on in-person voting or choose the electors. What concerns me is if the state legislature will pull some BS and either split the electors 50/50 for each candidate or otherwise favor Joe.
Well said. Act 77 is a straight forward case of an unconstitutional state law and a violation of equal protection constitutionally at the federal level.
The state courts can and will pull BS just like Bush v Gore in 2000 but when it gets to SCOTUS, the BS will stop.
Yes Roberts is a double-agent, Trump-hating POS but it's highly likely IMO that SCOTUS goes 5-4 against PA Act 77 on at least one of those constitutional grounds. The next problem though is, what is the relief?
SCOTUS should invalidate all of their mail-in ballots leaving the PA state legislature the decision to either let Trump win on in-person voting or choose the electors. What concerns me is if the state legislature will pull some BS and either split the electors 50/50 for each candidate or otherwise favor Joe.