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.
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...

23
UpTrump 23 points ago +23 / -0

How did Pennsylvania manage to have a Supreme Court that resembles California's?

37
deleted 37 points ago +38 / -1
14
John_McFly 14 points ago +14 / -0

They're elected to 21 year terms by statewide election. Philly controls the statewide offices, while the House and Senate are red due to the massive land area of the state.

9
ABAB 9 points ago +9 / -0

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

8
LeftiesAreTheRacists 8 points ago +8 / -0

Soros

3
flashersenpai 3 points ago +3 / -0

https://mobile.twitter.com/CottoGottfried/status/1332849169158070272

"Democracy Alliance" lobbying since 2015 is the claim

4
deleted 4 points ago +7 / -3
13
ABAB 13 points ago +13 / -0

But then it would have been dismissed for lack of standing - I.e. no harm had been done, nobody was injured.

1
zipodk 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yes that was the tweet

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
6
gnostic357 6 points ago +6 / -0

That seems to create a new rule. It is permissible to violate the constitution, if you can do so without anyone contesting the violation within 180 days, after which time, the violation can become law.

3
looncraz 3 points ago +3 / -0

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.

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!