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.
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
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.
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):
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.
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.
Best concise explanation of the situation. I have only been researching legal concepts for a little over a year, and it is amazing how easy it is to poison the well of information because of how complex and often convoluted the whole thing can be.
The people need this kind of no nonsense breakdown in order to not be swayed by manufactured opinions.
Half the time it seems like the activists in the Judiciary dont grasp the underlying concepts.
Seems like a good time to get into constitutional law practice. Obviously job opportunities in that field are not being filled by our best and brightest for the most part. (Obvious exceptions being Amy Coney Barret, Linn Wood, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani.)
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.
Isn’t this akin to the line item veto? One branch cannot give up their Constitutional duty to another branch, which is why Congress couldn’t give their budgetary authority to the President.
Yes, which leaves this lawsuit in the incredibly bizarre position of the plaintiffs suing to argue that their own actions were unconstitutional. The judge didn't seem too impressed.
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.
SCOTUS can definitely hear state constitution issues if it believes other states or the federal Constitition is affected. In fact SCOTUS has overruled state constitutions that criminalized homosexuality because it violated federal law.
The legislature could argue that the governor changed the rules they agreed to.
I upvoted you because I think you should be able to ask about what you did, but I believe the SC could theoretically hear the case on the basis on the US public being impacted by the results in PA, thus making it a federal issue.
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.
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.
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).
Well, technically Trump got the popular vote, since a large margin of the Biden votes were fraudulent.
They claim they don't want to rule against the will of the people, but by refusing to appoint Trump electors, they are doing EXACTLY what they claim to be against...
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
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.
Legislature started it, but governor signed it through after legislature gave up on it.
For it to be legal, it would have had to have been past through 2 legislative meetings, posted in 2 newspapers in every county in the state, AND voted upon by the people this general election.
There was no way to legally pass it before this election and they knew it.
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.
Yeah, that's their explanation, and it's garbage. The idea that an unconstitutional law must be immediately challenged is asinine... there have been MANY laws that were stricken as unconstitutional after decades of being on the books.
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.
4 have to say yes, but unlike typical cases seeking Cert, the Court is aware of inevitability of these election challenges. They aren't going to delay on deciding whether or not to grant cert, so all justices will weigh in.
nigga why would 6 justices have to say no to hearing it for the court to hear it lmao? thats like asking a bitch if she tryna fuck and she say no so u think yes and try to fuck ??????
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.
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
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.
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):
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.
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.
Best concise explanation of the situation. I have only been researching legal concepts for a little over a year, and it is amazing how easy it is to poison the well of information because of how complex and often convoluted the whole thing can be.
The people need this kind of no nonsense breakdown in order to not be swayed by manufactured opinions.
Half the time it seems like the activists in the Judiciary dont grasp the underlying concepts.
Seems like a good time to get into constitutional law practice. Obviously job opportunities in that field are not being filled by our best and brightest for the most part. (Obvious exceptions being Amy Coney Barret, Linn Wood, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani.)
Mods, give this man a "Constitutional Scholar" flair
Is this the case in which several states' attorneys general filed amicus briefs? Seems like there's a lot of support.
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.
I know people are hopeful for this, but the House leadership has expressed no intention of holding a session to even hold a vote for it.
Isn’t this akin to the line item veto? One branch cannot give up their Constitutional duty to another branch, which is why Congress couldn’t give their budgetary authority to the President.
Welcome to the root of Michigan's fuckery
So your telling me Pa republicans passed a stupid law then
"We don't wanna do it. You do it."
Sincerely
-Please vote for me again.
Yes.
Yes, which leaves this lawsuit in the incredibly bizarre position of the plaintiffs suing to argue that their own actions were unconstitutional. The judge didn't seem too impressed.
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.
Yes they can.
SCOTUS can definitely hear state constitution issues if it believes other states or the federal Constitition is affected. In fact SCOTUS has overruled state constitutions that criminalized homosexuality because it violated federal law.
The legislature could argue that the governor changed the rules they agreed to.
I upvoted you because I think you should be able to ask about what you did, but I believe the SC could theoretically hear the case on the basis on the US public being impacted by the results in PA, thus making it a federal issue.
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.
I think you might be retarded. Nothing you said was in any way connected to what you replied to.
LOL. I thought you were Anaconda’s alt account.
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.
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).
Well, technically Trump got the popular vote, since a large margin of the Biden votes were fraudulent.
They claim they don't want to rule against the will of the people, but by refusing to appoint Trump electors, they are doing EXACTLY what they claim to be against...
...or born in Kenya?
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
But Act 77 is in direct violation of the state constitution for PA, you stupid leftie shill.
This is true but this is something the legislature should have sent to the court beforehand and had the PA SC make a ruling on.
this from a comment 9 days old and fuel of shilling, ok sure whatever you say guy.
Don’t dignify
Deport
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.
Legislature started it, but governor signed it through after legislature gave up on it.
For it to be legal, it would have had to have been past through 2 legislative meetings, posted in 2 newspapers in every county in the state, AND voted upon by the people this general election.
There was no way to legally pass it before this election and they knew it.
This sounds like a disagreement for the SCOTUS to decide.
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.
Timely manner, filled the next fucking day????
The PA Supreme Court is like 5 D, 2 R, the result is expected...
How did Pennsylvania manage to have a Supreme Court that resembles California's?
But then it would have been dismissed for lack of standing - I.e. no harm had been done, nobody was injured.
Yeah, that's their explanation, and it's garbage. The idea that an unconstitutional law must be immediately challenged is asinine... there have been MANY laws that were stricken as unconstitutional after decades of being on the books.
Well - and she actually didn’t certify procedurally.
This doesn't have anything to do with certification other than the judge has halted certification until after the legal proceedings are finished.
Which is fully reviewable by the Supreme Court!
Non legal pede here. Does this mean yes or no.
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.
Clarence "Dark Winter" Thomas will likely also hold the line
”I’ve waited 30 years for this Joe”
Hehe...
Clarence Thomas will almost certainly rule in favor of hearing the case. I would be shocked if he didn’t.
Is it 4 or 6? A pede above with legal experience said 6. I prefer your answer of course.
It's 4. That person said if 6 say no the Supreme Court won't hear it.
9 Justices - 6 dissenters = only 3 saying yes. We need 4 to say yes.
Rule of 4. It's not an official rule but it's the one they've followed since the 1800s.
Is there enough time ffs our SCOTUS is dog shit right now.
What does it mean for dummies??
just hold tight to your boomstick and charge when we say charge in Minecraft.
Unless 6 Justices say no, yes
So will this go to the SCOTUS?
It should, there is enough evidence from what I have seen in the affidavits. Lying on signed affidavits is perjury.
Unless 6 Justices say no, yes
Do 6 justices have to say no or do 4 justices have to say yes?
4 have to say yes, but unlike typical cases seeking Cert, the Court is aware of inevitability of these election challenges. They aren't going to delay on deciding whether or not to grant cert, so all justices will weigh in.
Yes!
nigga why would 6 justices have to say no to hearing it for the court to hear it lmao? thats like asking a bitch if she tryna fuck and she say no so u think yes and try to fuck ??????
Full speed, no brakes.