Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania Republicans' attempt to block Biden victory

[caddieman]

can we move on now?

 

   

Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania Republicans' attempt to block Biden victory

By Ariane de Vogue and Paul LeBlanc, CNN

 

CNN)The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block certification of the commonwealth's election results, delivering a near fatal blow to the GOP's long-shot bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory. 

The Supreme Court's action is a crushing loss for Trump, who has frequently touted the high court's potential to overturn his election loss. 

Just hours before the court's order was released, Trump made a direct appeal to state officials and members of the Supreme Court to assist him in his efforts to subvert the will of voters, as he continually and falsely suggested there was massive voter fraud during the election.

Tuesday's one-line order was issued with no noted dissents or comment from any of the nine justices. The court is made up of six conservative justices -- including Trump's three nominees -- Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett -- and three liberals.

The order marked Barrett's first vote on an election-related dispute.

The quick action with no public dissents (justices may choose whether to announce their dissent) is a signal the Supreme Court may not want to get involved in the ongoing Trump challenges, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law professor.

"The fact that the justices issued a one-sentence order with no separate opinions is a powerful sign that the court intends to stay out of election-related disputes, and that it's going to leave things to the electoral process going forward," Vladeck said. 

"It's hard to imagine a more quietly resounding rejection of these challenges from this court," Vladeck added.

Tuesday marks the "safe harbor" deadline for the state under federal law. That means that when Congress tallies the electoral votes in January, it must accept electoral results that were certified before the deadline.

Steep odds for Republicans

The effort from Pennsylvania GOP lawmakers faced steep odds at the Supreme Court, particularly because the dispute turned mostly on issues of state law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the challenge previously, holding that Rep. Mike Kelly and others bringing the suit failed to file their challenge in a timely manner.

No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor's certification of presidential election results," argued J. Bart Delone, the state's chief deputy attorney general. "The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting in this kind of judicial power would be incalculable."

The emergency petition from the lawmakers was addressed to Justice Samuel Alito, who has jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania courts. He referred it to the whole court, which issued the order. 

Legal losses pile up

Tuesday's action comes after weeks of desperate appeals and baseless conspiracies pushed by the President and his allies that his second term is being stolen.

"We will still win it," the President said in Georgia Saturday evening, even though there are no means for him to do so.

To this point, the Trump campaign's lawsuits have been dismissed or dropped at a furious pace. And even before Tuesday, there was a sense developing within Trump's legal team that their efforts are coming to an end, multiple sources previously told CNN.

While Trump said in a 46-minute video released last week that they would continue to file lawsuits, his legal team has held fewer meetings and strategy calls in the last several days.

Still, the President's staunchest defenders on Capitol Hill are urging him not to concede even after Biden wins the Electoral College vote next week, calling on him to battle it out all the way to the House floor in January.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shabibilicious]

Supreme Court dismisses Trump allies' challenge to Pennsylvania election

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

Tue, December 8, 2020, 5:25 PM EST

 

 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to stop Pennsylvania from finalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state despite allegations from allies of President Donald Trump that the expansion of mail-in voting was illegal .

The action by the nation's highest court, which includes three justices named by Trump, came as states across the country are locking in the results that will lead to next week's Electoral College vote. It represented the latest in a string of stinging judicial opinions that have left the president defeated both politically and legally.

By their one-sentence denial, the justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late. New Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to have participated in the case; no dissents or recusals were noted.

Led by conservative Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., the challengers claimed that the Republican-led state legislature's expansion of absentee voting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. Rather than going to court after its passage, however, they waited until the state figured prominently in Trump's loss to Biden last month.

Trump's own lawyers have still more lawsuits pending in key states, including Pennsylvania, where a federal appeals court last month rejected his unsupported claims that the election was fraudulent and ballots were processed improperly. To date, however, judges have rejected nearly all their arguments.

Late Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a new long-shot lawsuit to the high court, asking it to block Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from certifying Biden's victory when the Electoral College meets Monday to formally select the next president. He claimed the four states used the coronavirus pandemic as a pretext to change voting rules unconstitutionally.

In the case dismissed Tuesday, challengers contended that state officials had no right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to expand mail-in voting in 2019, and the state Supreme Court was wrong to uphold that statute. The group called it "an unconstitutional, no-excuse absentee voting scheme."

"Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election," the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was "conducted illegally."

The group sought an emergency injunction from the nation's highest court to block the completion of any remaining steps in the state's certification of Pennsylvania's 2020 election results, which took place two weeks ago.

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on December 7, 2020.

The effort was a long shot from the start, particularly since it would have erased the votes of millions of law-abiding citizens without even claiming that any fraud was committed. What's more, the Supreme Court is disinclined to overrule actions taken by state courts in regard to state issues.

On Monday, the state's Republican Party, 23 Republicans members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and 32 Republican state legislators filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Kelly and his fellow challengers. Without high court action, the House members said they feared "the additional cynicism and rot that Pennsylvania’s actions will inflict on our national body politic."

Attorneys for the state responded Tuesday, accusing challengers of asking the high court to undertake "one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic."

"After waiting over a year to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state," they argued. "They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash.... Their suit is nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy."

Trump’s campaign has pursued a separate battle in Pennsylvania federal courts to block or rescind the certification of the state’s election results. However, two lower federal courts issued scathing rulings that said the campaign lacked legal standing to pursue the case, as well as any specific allegations or evidence.

The state court case was filed Nov. 21, more than two weeks after Election Day and about a year after the Pennsylvania General Assembly approved what's known as Act 77, a major overhaul of the state's election code.

The change included the first authorization of wide-scale mail-in voting in the state's history. This year's presidential race marked the first time the changes were in effect for a Pennsylvania general election.

Gov. Thomas Wolf, a Democrat, certified Pennsylvania's election results three days after the petition was filed in state court. The certification showed that Biden beat Trump in the state by a 80,555-vote margin.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-refuses-hear-trump-215024516.html

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited December 9, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[yota691]

6 minutes ago, caddieman said:

can we move on now?

Link to the article?

[caddieman]

1 minute ago, yota691 said:

Link to the article?

Sorry 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-trump-biden/index.html

[yota691]

14 minutes ago, caddieman said:

 

By Ariane de Vogue 

She was actor back in the day turn so called reporter

 

Ariane de Vogue

Actress

 

 

Ariane de Vogue is an actress, known for Sylvester (1985), The Situation Room (2005) and CNN Tonight (2014).

[Shabibilicious]

20 minutes ago, yota691 said:

She was actor back in the day turn so called reporter

 

Ariane de Vogue

Actress

 

 

Ariane de Vogue is an actress, known for Sylvester (1985), The Situation Room (2005) and CNN Tonight (2014).

 

Going along with your post of Ariane de Vogue..... Many actors have gone on to other careers....some succeed, some not so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO RV, then BV

 

 

[coorslite21]

Long way to go fellas....if you're so sure this is a slam dunk for the left.... why the need, and urgency, to keep posting MSM propoganda....

CL

[Shabibilicious]

Endgame: SCOTUS Denies Pennsylvania Republicans’ Request To Block Certification Of Election

ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 5:47 pm on December 8, 2020

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

SHARE ON TWITTER

No dissents noted. This is the Court’s order in its entirety.

SEE ALSO: “We are not convinced”: Nevada supreme court unanimously rejects Team Trump appeal

 

Not so much as a line of legal reasoning, eh? Maybe that’s a nod to the fact that today is, after all, the “safe harbor” deadline and as I pointed out in this post the Court has been sensitive to that before. It mattered to the majority in Bush v. Gore, which rushed out its ruling before that deadline passed. Today’s Court may have done the same thing: With little time left to draft an opinion before the deadline expired, they chose to simply get their ruling on the books instead.

 

Which means Pennsylvania should meet the “safe harbor” deadline. There’s no more litigation pending in this case. By the end of the day, Congress will be bound by statute to accept Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes for Joe Biden. All thanks to the alacrity of a conservative-dominated Supreme Court.

Congrats to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Clarence Thomas on having become The Ultimate RINOs.

Given the open disdain other courts have showed for Trump-related election lawsuits and Kelly’s suit in particular, I wonder if the brevity here wasn’t also partly motivated by the Court not wanting to have to spell out just how extraordinary and contemptible it is that the petitioners would ask them to disenfranchise millions of voters. The Court guards perceptions of its legitimacy jealously. A rhetorical beating delivered to Kelly and Trump at length wouldn’t have served that cause well among Republicans. Better to just deliver a thumbs down.

There’s another possible explanation for the brevity. As law prof Jonathan Adler notes, the core problem with Kelly’s suit was that it raised questions about state law. The state supreme court is the final arbiter of those, not the U.S. Supreme Court, so ultimately what is there to say? The petitioners tried to transform those state issues into constitutional ones in order to get it before SCOTUS, which smacked of “repackaging,” in the words of Third Circuit Judge (and Trump appointee) Stephanos Bibas. More from Adler:

To my mind, the biggest problem with this suit is the lack of a real federal question. Whatever one thinks of the state law questions, the attempts to make a federal case out of these state law claims is quite strained, and the existence of independent and sufficient state law grounds should insulate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision from review.

It is also worth noting that the underlying theory of Rep. Kelly’s suit is in tension with the theory underlying Texas Attorney General Paxton’s latest suit and other recent election suits. Whereas others have claimed that state legislatures have near-plenary authority to determine the manner of selecting presidential electors — and therefore election law changes made by non-legislative actors are suspect — Rep. Kelly claims the state legislature is constrained by the state constitution, but not as interpreted by state courts. So whereas other suits complain about state election administrators or state courts altering state election law without legislative approval, this suit claims that the constitutional problem is that Pennsylvania state courts failed to overturn changes to state election law made by the legislature. It is almost as if the theories are not based on principled consideration of the underlying constitutional questions, but are instead constructed to ensure the desired outcome.

I’m glad he brought up the Texas suit that Ed wrote about this morning. If Kelly’s suit was a 9-0 dismissal, how do you suppose the one from Texas seeking to disenfranchise voters across multiple swing states will fare?

The point to bear in mind here is that, as dubious as it was, Kelly’s lawsuit was one of the stronger suits filed on Trump’s behalf during the post-election period. There was a legitimate question underlying it as to how to reconcile the state statute permitting mail-in votes with the state constitution specifying in-person voting. There was also a question of whether petitioners were caught in a Catch-22, as Ted Cruz has insisted, since they lacked standing to challenge that statute before the election and were barred by laches from pursuing it after the vote. But ultimately those were questions for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. The former tossed them and the latter seemingly deferred. Case closed.

Hard to argue with Neil Cavuto:

 

He was “clearly” president-elect before. Nothing that happened in this case was going to knock him down below 270 electoral votes, even if SCOTUS had tossed Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. But the fact that today’s order was so terse and apparently unanimous for, as I say, a suit that had a little more merit than the average Sidney Powell fantasia is all the proof we need that the Supreme Court isn’t coming to the rescue here.

God only knows how Trump will take that. He doesn’t care a thing for law, statutes, or what have you. He understands “loyalty” and his three appointees didn’t show it today. Presumably they’re the next to be demagogued:

 

There are only two steps left in this pitiful saga. The electoral college meets on Monday so maybe there’ll be some half-assed legal effort to enjoin them from voting or, failing that, to try to persuade Biden’s electors to switch to Trump. Then Congress meets on January 6 to record the electoral college’s vote, which should be a big day for angry “last stand” speeches from the likes of Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar or whoever else before the House and Senate inevitably cinch Biden’s victory. Plenty of rage and anxiety and hallucinatory theories about snatching victories from the jaws of defeat still to come, for no g-ddamned reason whatsoever except to make people more bitter and contemptuous of their national community.

I’ll leave you with this, which is as true as it is funny.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/12/08/endgame-scotus-denies-pa-republicans-request-block-certification-election/

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

1 minute ago, coorslite21 said:

Long way to go fellas....if you're so sure this is a slam dunk for the left.... why the need, and urgency, to keep posting MSM propoganda....

CL

 

Who said anything about a slam dunk for the Left?.....just posting article about the SCOTUS' unanimous ruling on the Pennsylvania election.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Theseus]

This is fake news. The exact order by the SCOTUS is the following:

 

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

 

The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

 

Since this was based on the application and does not state the case has been dismissed outright. The application for injuctive relief has been denied. Meaning that the case can still be heard by the Court but the Court will not step in at this time. It does not mean all judges ruled against or in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. It just means the application as was presented was denied. This has nothing to do with the case going forward at a later date. Many applications are denied by the court. Usually this signifies it needs to be worked out in lower courts before being brought to SCOTUS.

[Theseus]

7 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Who said anything about a slam dunk for the Left?.....just posting article about the SCOTUS' unanimous ruling on the Pennsylvania election.  

 

GO RV, then BV

I call Prime Grade A BS on this statement. You are enjoying every moment of this. How many different spin articles are you going to post. Every article you have posted has come to a different conclusion on how the SCOTUS came to the conclusion and to which Justices did so. 

 

And it is not "ENDGAME" what a pack full of BS.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Theseus

[Shabibilicious]

1 minute ago, Theseus said:

I call Prime Grade A BS on this statement. You are enjoying every moment of this. How many different spin articles are you going to post. Every article you have posted has come to a different conclusion on how the SCOTUS came to the conclusion and to which Justices did so. 

 

I posted order 592 as part of the article above....did you read it?

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, Theseus said:

You are enjoying every moment of this. 

 

There's nothing enjoyable about watching Donald and company tear this country apart....Honest Abe would roll over in his grave if he saw what has become of the Grand Ole Party.  Shameful.

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited December 9, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Shabibilicious]

 

GO RV, then BV

[Theseus]

Trump Attorney Jenna Ellis: Supreme Court Only Denied Emergency Injunctive Relief – The Pennsylvania Case Is STILL Pending Before SCOTUS

By Jim Hoft
Published December 8, 2020 at 8:47pm
743 Comments

Share on Facebook(1.9k)TweetShareEmail

 

Texas on Tuesday filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging election procedures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over potential voter fraud.

Then later this afternoon the Supreme Court denied the Pennsylvania injunction case before the court.

Advertisement - story continues below

This was the Sean Parnell and Mike Kelly case. Expert says SCOTUS rejected the PA case without any explanation because the same stuff is covered in the Texas case which is a bigger case that includes GA, MI, and WI.

 

 

00:0001:17

 

 

 

TRENDING: Allen West: Seven States Will Join Texas in SCOTUS Lawsuit Against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

Following the ruling Senator Doug Mastriano vowed to continue the fight against the fraudulent Pennsylvania election.

Let me be clear: I will not rest until Pennsylvanians feel their voices were heard in the #2020Election.

— Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) December 7, 2020

Advertisement - story continues below

 

And on Tuesday night Trump Attorney Jenna Ellis tweeted out that the injunction was dismissed but the case is still active.

 

The case was NOT thrown out of court.

 

 

[Shabibilicious]

 

GO RV, then BV

[Theseus]

19 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I posted order 592 as part of the article above....did you read it?

 

GO RV, then BV

The question is You posted it but do you know what it means? See the article in which the Lawyer Jenna Ellis states only the Emergency Injunctive Relief was denied but the case was not denied.

[Shabibilicious]

Just now, Theseus said:

The question is You posted it but do you know what it means? See the article in which the Lawyer Jenna Ellis states only the Emergency Injunctive Relief was denied but the case was not denied.

 

Understood....watch the Lou Dobbs above.  It's explained, pretty much as you say it, in that video.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Theseus]

Did you read the article I  posted?

 

I will refer you to the paragraphs near the bottom of the article:

9 minutes ago, Theseus said:

Then later this afternoon the Supreme Court denied the Pennsylvania injunction case before the court.

This was the Sean Parnell and Mike Kelly case. Expert says SCOTUS rejected the PA case without any explanation because the same stuff is covered in the Texas case which is a bigger case that includes GA, MI, and WI.

 

 

 

Let me be clear: I will not rest until Pennsylvanians feel their voices were heard in the #2020Election.

— Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) December 7, 2020

Advertisement - story continues below

 

And on Tuesday night Trump Attorney Jenna Ellis tweeted out that the injunction was dismissed but the case is still active.

 

The case was NOT thrown out of court.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Theseus

[Theseus]

5 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Understood....watch the Lou Dobbs above.  It's explained, pretty much as you say it, in that video.

 

GO RV, then BV

I would rather watch Dobby of Harry Potter. At least that character had integrity.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Theseus

[Shabibilicious]

1 minute ago, Theseus said:

Did you read the article I  posted?

 

I did.....Did you watch the Lou Dobbs video?

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, Theseus said:

I would rather watch Dobby of Harry Potter. At least that character had integrity.

 

Ahh, I see....I'm to read your stuff, but you won't watch what I posted by a staunch Trump supporter....Pretty much the way this country is going right now...the Trump fans want it their way, and their way ONLY.  Too bad, you're missing a learning moment.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited December 9, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Theseus]

25 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

There's nothing enjoyable about watching Donald and company tear this country apart....Honest Abe would roll over in his grave if he saw what has become of the Grand Ole Party.  Shameful.

 

GO RV, then BV

Trump is not tearing this country apart. Anyone who thinks that someone practising their rights under the US Constitution is tearing this country apart is a fool. AS a US Citizen Trump has every right to this process as would Biden would have every right to follow through to argue for his right as a citizen to a fair and honest election. The Courts are not the final arbiters of the election by the way. You need to go back and read the US Constitution. Cleary you are uninformed about every citizen's rights on this matter including Trump. Actually you know nothing of good ole Honest Abe because good ole Honest Abe is not the Father of the Grand Ole Party. That distinction belongs to someone else. Nice try though.

[Theseus]

3 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Ahh, I see....I'm to read your stuff, but you won't watch what I posted by a staunch Trump supporter....Pretty much the way this country is going right now...the Trump fans want it their way, and their way ONLY.  Too bad, you're missing a learning moment.  

 

GO RV, then BV

I stopped watching FOX long ago and that includes their anchors. Haven't yuou been reading the news FOX is bleeding in its ratings they have lost almost 70% of their ratings since Election night. CNN has even passed them in the ratings a couple of times. Newsmax even took over the number one spot from FOX NEWS. Just because you post something does not mean I am going to one read it or two watch it. Don't think so highly of yourself. Besides I know you don't even read a quarter of what I post. Do I care? Nope.

[Shabibilicious]

Just now, Theseus said:

Trump is not tearing this country apart. Anyone who thinks that someone practising their rights under the US Constitution is tearing this country apart is a fool. AS a US Citizen Trump has every right to this process as would Biden would have every right to follow through to argue for his right as a citizen to a fair and honest election. The Courts are not the final arbiters of the election by the way. You need to go back and read the US Constitution. Cleary you are uninformed about every citizen's rights on this matter including Trump. Actually you know nothing of good ole Honest Abe because good ole Honest Abe is not the Father of the Grand Ole Party. That distinction belongs to someone else. Nice try though.

 

Opinions vary.....and roughly 7.1 million more voters for Biden than Trump believe Joe Biden will be the next POTUS.  Trump does have the right to every legal recourse in the election process....He is absolutely being irresponsible in whipping an impressionable base into a lather through with his incendiary comments.  As always, just my opinion.  And I never said Honest Abe was the father of the GOP....just that he would roll over if he saw the shambles it's turned into.

 

GO RV, then BV