6866
PA Supreme Court tosses GOP case (twitter.com) 🛑 STOP THE STEAL 🛑
posted ago by TheBasedZodiac ago by TheBasedZodiac +6867 / -1
Comments (1077)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
708
localhost 708 points ago +718 / -10

Does that mean it will go to the federal Supreme Court now?

1020
Constitution_jd 1020 points ago +1029 / -9

Legal pede here:

SCotUS can hear state supreme court cases on appeal of constitutional questions, unless there is an independent and adequate state law ground for the state court ruling.

There doesn't appear to be one, as this ruling isn't rooted in the vagaries PA law.

Edit: simple answer, there's no ground for SCotUS not to hear the case, so it's almost certainly going to the Supreme Court. The only way it doesn't is if 6 justices say no.

Edit 2: for anyone thinking that there is no US Constitutional question, please read Bush v. Gore (or check the wikipedia for a quick overview). There are questions of Constitutional review concerning the state case, including but not limited to due process and Article 2 plenary power.

456
TrumpSavedWesternCiv 456 points ago +461 / -5

The constitution delegates the power to select electors to the state legislatures (which would include the voting process for that state). The PA legislature never approved the expanded mail-in voting that PA used for this election

337
thunderstorm 337 points ago +341 / -4

The PA legislature did approve of it, but the law they passed was unconstitutional because the PA Constitution gives specific requirements for mail-in ballots.

190
illidann 190 points ago +191 / -1

theres 2 things re Act 77 that expanded mail-in ballots in PA from what I gather when listening to Bannon discussing this with Sean Parnell (the other plaintiff in this case):

  1. The law (Act77) was passed with the goal of expanding the use of mail-in ballots but is unconstitutional because of specific requirements in the PA Constitution that are needed in order to change the conditions of use of mail-in ballots as the law was intent in doing.

  2. After the law was passed, the PA governor and election officials went in just before the election and amended the law by going to the PA supreme court and basically took out safeguards put in the law (Act77) itself for accepting mail-in ballots. They went to the partisan PA supreme court and did not go through the legislature to do it. And that is also unconstitutional.

for both violation 1) and 2), SCOTUS can accept to hear the case. But especially in violation 2) as that is basic constitutional law 101 that affects every state : only the legislative branch can enact and amend laws, not the executive or judiciary branch as it has been done in PA.

That is my understanding of the situation . If I am wrong somewhere, dont hesitate to correct me.

26
wampdog29 26 points ago +27 / -1

Also, it's worth noting that the legislature had given the authority over voting in PA to the Secretary of State. They are in the process of rescinding this.

13
vudka 13 points ago +13 / -0

So your telling me Pa republicans passed a stupid law then

-46
debacle -46 points ago +43 / -89

But SCOTUS cannot hear a case based on the PA constitution. The PA Supreme Court is cucked.

Edit: I see a lot of people getting butthurt about this response. The US Supreme Court cannot rule on whether or not a PA law violates the PA constitution. There are other, ongoing cases regarding the Constitutional validity of the voting deadline changes (among other things), that Trump will almost certainly win.

72
Anaconda 72 points ago +90 / -18

Fuck any SCOTUS justice if they rule against us or if they punt it back to state courts. Also, if they punt it back while they all 9 claim to be "anonymous" and don't make themselves known publically because they are too chickenshit then fuck all the conservative justices.

27
deleted 27 points ago +28 / -1
-198
deleted -198 points ago +16 / -214
10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
-16
Brave1884 -16 points ago +6 / -22

No it doesn’t. Idk why this low level shit is getting passed around so much. The state appoints electors, not the legislature, the legislature gets to choose the manner in which that happens. They chose to do it by popular vote and they had to direct that manner by nov 3, the date congress set for the election. Legislature does not get to change it after the fact, at least not untill unless scotus rules on the constitutional clauses stoping them.

9
looncraz 9 points ago +9 / -0

The Legislature can decide the electors at the last minute if it so chooses and can absolutely go against popular vote. One good cause would be the discovery of massive fraud, but a more likely cause would be the discovery that the winning candidate was unfit for office (such as having secretly been born outside the U.S. or only being 30 years old).

5
TrumpSavedWesternCiv 5 points ago +5 / -0

The secretary of state changed the voting rules without legislative approval, which is illegal under the constitution because the legislature did not give the sos the power to do that

-35
deleted -35 points ago +14 / -49
61
mugwump 61 points ago +64 / -3

But Act 77 is in direct violation of the state constitution for PA, you stupid leftie shill.

30
FightingPatriot17 30 points ago +35 / -5

this from a comment 9 days old and fuel of shilling, ok sure whatever you say guy.

24
chopz 24 points ago +25 / -1

Legislature the other day said that that never went through them - Governor signed it immediately upon it hitting his desk. Then said any challenge would be immediately veto'd

Why did they try so hard to push this through without the legislature. very interesting.

23
deleted 23 points ago +24 / -1
17
Greg-2012 17 points ago +17 / -0

This sounds like a disagreement for the SCOTUS to decide.

59
thunderstorm 59 points ago +59 / -0

This is literally a procedural constitutional lawsuit and the PA SC decided to just not hear the case based on shaky ground of not being filed in a timely manner.

49
21JAN2025 49 points ago +49 / -0

Timely manner, filled the next fucking day????

39
John_McFly 39 points ago +39 / -0

The PA Supreme Court is like 5 D, 2 R, the result is expected...

4
deleted 4 points ago +7 / -3
40
deleted 40 points ago +40 / -0
2
CavDaughter68 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well - and she actually didn’t certify procedurally.

3
thunderstorm 3 points ago +3 / -0

This doesn't have anything to do with certification other than the judge has halted certification until after the legal proceedings are finished.

1
Constitution_jd 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is fully reviewable by the Supreme Court!

53
RussianBot4Trump 53 points ago +55 / -2

Non legal pede here. Does this mean yes or no.

81
Oggeo 81 points ago +82 / -1

It means yes, because it literally doesn't matter what any of these lower courts say.

If 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices say they will hear the case, it goes to the Supreme Court. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are almost certainly going to allow it.

Hold the line.

70
420weedscopes 70 points ago +70 / -0

Clarence "Dark Winter" Thomas will likely also hold the line

4
Cuckslayer2020 4 points ago +4 / -0

Clarence Thomas will almost certainly rule in favor of hearing the case. I would be shocked if he didn’t.

4
MakeCaliRedAgain_202 4 points ago +4 / -0

Is it 4 or 6? A pede above with legal experience said 6. I prefer your answer of course.

1
Helicopter_Latino 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is there enough time ffs our SCOTUS is dog shit right now.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
Pointyearnation 3 points ago +3 / -0

What does it mean for dummies??

2
MuhSoy 2 points ago +3 / -1

just hold tight to your boomstick and charge when we say charge in Minecraft.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Constitution_jd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Unless 6 Justices say no, yes

23
Jeeperyj 23 points ago +23 / -0

So will this go to the SCOTUS?

15
Greg-2012 15 points ago +15 / -0

It should, there is enough evidence from what I have seen in the affidavits. Lying on signed affidavits is perjury.

3
Constitution_jd 3 points ago +3 / -0

Unless 6 Justices say no, yes

2
NoahGav 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do 6 justices have to say no or do 4 justices have to say yes?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
11
xkgb 11 points ago +11 / -0

Full speed, no brakes.

125
deleted 125 points ago +133 / -8
84
DonaldStump 84 points ago +107 / -23

Its all going to plan pedes

50
Pilotmtb 50 points ago +69 / -19

Whoever downvoted this is a doomer and needs to reconsider their life choices

38
DonaldStump 38 points ago +49 / -11

Doomers need to disembark from the front of the MAGA Train🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

14
deleted 14 points ago +21 / -7
38
deleted 38 points ago +40 / -2
24
RavenHusky 24 points ago +26 / -2

It needed to get thrown out so that the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

21
ColbyP 21 points ago +21 / -0

Given the PA supreme court is overwhelmingly democrat, they were definitely expecting it to get get thrown out, yes. Which means it now gets to go to the actual supreme court, where we hold the majority even if Roberts cucks, and that's the end of it. Supreme Court ruling is final.

5
flashersenpai 5 points ago +5 / -0

Not the plan for it to be thrown out. That was just the expected outcome. So nothing to be worried about. It was always the expectation that the case would be appealed, including if the PA SC ruled in favor of the republicans.

2
deleted 2 points ago +6 / -4
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-11
DrAugustBalls -11 points ago +14 / -25

So losing a pretty clear-cut case in a sate state Supreme Court is “going to plan?”

I don’t like the idea of always relying on the SCOTUS to be the backstop for everything, especially given how politicized it has become. Seems like having the states do the right thing would avoid a lot of headaches and potential risk.

Wouldn’t a better plan have bin to just win the case?

24
PawtucketPat 24 points ago +25 / -1

The PA SC was never going to do anything in trumps favor or make anything easy is the point hes making. As much as we all wouldve liked for this to be settled today it's not really surprising this dem heavy court found a way to kick it back

9
SleepingDragon4444 9 points ago +9 / -0

Do you think that is possible?

Did you not see the flimsy nonsense they rejected the case on?

Do you really think there was a snowball in hell chance of winning that case?

It is a stepping stone. That’s it. That’s all it ever could have been. The rejection is expected.

You may not like relying on the SC, but that is where we are at. You don’t like how it is politicized, but I don’t like how mortal kombat, my kid’s homework, and even my aquarium magazines, are politicized. Everything is politicized, now. It’s actually been that way for a while. In six months, when there’s pandemonium, as pissed off leftists burn down their own cities, are you going to like where we are at? I’m not, but if we win with this, the breakdown is inevitable. Actually, the breakdown is inevitable anyway.

The country is dysfunctional. The justice systems is dysfunctional. It’s never going to be like it was.

We can win this one, and postpone the reckoning another four years, at least. War will eventually be inevitable, though. There’s no avoiding that.

3
flashersenpai 3 points ago +3 / -0

"going to plan" is better stated as "going as expected"

It's not always possible to win a particular "event" but it's also not damaging to lose a particular "event" either.

2
DonaldStump 2 points ago +3 / -1

No. Trump said it election night.

"We are going to take this to the Supreme Court"

2
Tookens 2 points ago +2 / -0

Win the case in a court completely stacked with Dims? Good luck w/that.

-86
deleted -86 points ago +15 / -101
36
21JAN2025 36 points ago +37 / -1

Four SCotUS judges can decide to hear the case.

-10
Brave1884 -10 points ago +6 / -16

They won’t though, they would have to overturn so many of there own cases about state rights to hear this.

21
TrumpsBestFriend 21 points ago +23 / -2

Civil War is increasingly necessary

1
Panthers426 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, if the Courts fail to rectify this and continue to act in this illegitimate manner, the United States has dissolved and no longer exists as a legal legitimate entity.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
-11
420weedscopes -11 points ago +1 / -12

Cucked Scotus judge who should be an R but always votes with the Dems. Bush appointee

11
deleted 11 points ago +14 / -3
7
Azukas 7 points ago +8 / -1

I dont think you know how this works.

-15
deleted -15 points ago +12 / -27
40
shinzoabe 40 points ago +42 / -2

I think so

21
errydaktal 21 points ago +22 / -1

Remember all these people who threw out cases and keep a log. These people are guilty of treason and must be arrested.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
shinzoabe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
30
James_Slacum 30 points ago +31 / -1

If they agree to pick it up. Yep.

21
deleted 21 points ago +21 / -0
7
James_Slacum 7 points ago +7 / -0

It'll be okay, brother. Like Rudy said, these areas are Democrat-ran and Democrat-controlled. Their police are liberal hacks, their sheriff's are libeal hacks, and their local justice systems are liberal hacks. Within every echelon of state government, it's nut-to-butt with Biden dick-riding losers,

No matter how well Trump does in the lower courts, the presidential election MUST end in the highest court. Until that final battle comes, don't let these godless liberal faggots fuck up your day. We will have the last laugh and it will be top five MOST significant elections in our country's history.

Be proud that you and I are around to spread the good word of Kekistan!!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
16
pithys 16 points ago +18 / -2

It will go to commonwealth. Not sure if that means it has a path to SCOTUS

(here's sean parnell talking about it) https://youtu.be/2QJxJpaWvME?t=6020

10
BoughtByBloomberg2 10 points ago +10 / -0

Common wealth is a lower court to the SCOTUS of PA right?

1
James_Slacum 1 point ago +1 / -0

"There's another settlement that needs our help!"