PENNSYLVANIA ARGUES: Poll watchers only need to be in the room even if too far away to observe ballots
(media.patriots.win)
🚁 FREE CHOPPER RIDES 🚁
posted ago by BidensHiding
+1053 / -0
Comments (44)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
Front
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
PA - once a great state, now a commie crap hole.
Tens of millions of citizens are being held hostage by corrupt Democrat cities.
It would be ironic that the TX AG, when listing off the evidence, refuses to give the documents to the bailiff for SCOTUS to see it, instead citing that they should be able to see it from that distance (per Pennsylvania's argument) and if not, should enter into the record evidence that humans cannot see what is going from that distance (and then hand over the evidence to the bailiff).
Amo box.
Now do California.
This is coming from Philadelphia and Tom Wolf. A lot of the state is pissed.
Do California next. Because https://thedonald.win/p/11QlTtR31s/just-sayin/ your turn is coming.
As far as I know, the courts take into consideration the reasonable intention of a statute.
The purpose of having watchers in the room was to ensure a fair election. They're watchers. If they can't watch, that kinda defeats the purpose of them being in the room in the first place.
Exactly. I trust our SC justices to appreciate the assholery of PA's rationale.
If that is the case republicans will never ever win an election again.
Not if every Republican makes the Democrat poll watcher stand at the other side of a huge room while allowing Republican poll watchers to contest every Democrat ballot
every big city governed by democrats, you are done
But this argument has worked with every judge it's been in front of so far.
But can't they argue that it wasn't "fairly enforced"? I. E.-Republicans were held farther away than Democrats.
Unfortunately, there are innumerable far-left activists larping as judges.
'was reasonable to us' -- they cant argue!
Lol next time they go to the bank I encourage them to make this argument.
Take out a bank loan? Signature required.
Determine the future of our republic? Nah
So what was the intention of the law?
Obviously the intent was to allow reps to view the count in such a way that they would be able to agree or disagree with how votes were tallied.
if a "poll watcher" is unable to "watch the polls" then they are no longer "poll watchers" and now there are no poll watchers in the room
Their whole response was a joke
This is by far the worst rebuttal ive ever seen... If scotus doesnt turn this over.... Wow is all imma say at moment...
If across a whole room, how would you know they were even official ballots? If you can't see the ballot it might as well be toilet paper.
I’m amazed they didn’t say as long as you’re in a 1 mile radius, it’s fine.
totally reasonable
After a fair trial, traitors only need to be in the vicinity of the helicopter even if too far away to survive.
Only in silly Philly
They waned to get rid of the EC, they found a way, but good thing they were caught.
I'm glad they referenced the pathetic PA Supreme Court
What some dumbasses.
MEANINGFUL observation
Detroit put up cardboard on windows to block observers. Philly and Atlanta likewise kicked out observers.
All votes counted without observers should be tossed. Rudy said several hundred thousand votes were counted without observers from these ghettoes.
That flips Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. Trump wins.
It should take 10 minutes for SCOTUS to decide this case.
If we're getting stupid, let's get really stupid. What's the purpose of them 'being in the room'? Eye candy? Fart sniffing?
New Jersey can have Philly. I'm over it.
I would think the Supreme Court would deem this an overreach. The framers of this law put it in there under the common sense and implied notion that observers would be afforded the right to perform that specific duty. As a strict Constitutionalist a justice interprets a law under the mindset of the framers of that law. It's clear the PA are compromised.
"viewing distance"
I ain't a lawyer but why would you write a law that allows people to observe but allow people to interpret it to mean they couldn't see what was going on???
Clearly a violation of the intent and spirit of the law... And they know it.