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.)
This POS says this is an "effort to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters." UNLESS YOU AUDIT THE VOTE IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IS!
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.
Oh shit, a WoW reference!
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was merely a setback.
Shadowland is out. We should all band together and form a MAGA guild!
Iād be there!
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.)
So the more complicated. The suit is, the easier it is to find judgement against it. In other words KISS.
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.
This POS says this is an "effort to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters." UNLESS YOU AUDIT THE VOTE IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IS!
yes I think that point 2) is where other states joined in because a SCOTUS decision on that point would affect them as well.