Pennsylvania case going to Supreme Court??

Nvm

BobRyan said:

Now how many of you knew that the case was going to be heard by SCOTUS all along?

Click to expand...

Supreme Court declines to take action on Trump’s Pennsylvania appeal prior to certification of Biden win

the court’s regular order list for its November 20 conference did not include any action on the case.

The court could take action at its December 4 conference, which is after Pennsylvania’s November 23 deadline for counties to certify the election.

essentialsaltes said:

Supreme Court declines to take action on Trump’s Pennsylvania appeal prior to certification of Biden win

the court’s regular order list for its November 20 conference did not include any action on the case.

The court could take action at its December 4 conference, which is after Pennsylvania’s November 23 deadline for counties to certify the election.

Click to expand...

I look forward to the goal post being shifted this evening from the media does not get to call elections to the states don't get too call elections because reasons.

essentialsaltes said:

The court could take action at its December 4 conference, which is after Pennsylvania’s November 23 deadline for counties to certify the election.

Click to expand...

Given clown show of the lawyers that trump has, it highly unlikely.

Desk trauma said:

I look forward to the goal post being shifted this evening from the media does not get to call elections to the states don't get too call elections because reasons.

Click to expand...

They have the legal authority to do so before, dec 8 I think,

super animator said:

They have the legal authority to do so before, dec 8 I think,

Click to expand...

Dec 8 isn't necessarily a deadline for this. There are advantages to states in sending their certificates to the Archivist before Dec 8, but they don't absolutely have to. They can also send it earlier. I think if there's a deadline it's when the State sends its certificate of ascertainment to the Archivist. Does the Supreme Court even have the power to rescind a state's certification once they've sent it to the Archivist? I doubt it. The Constitution and legislation vests the power to judge elections in Congress. The Court might actually be a better place. But that's not what the rules say. I actually have a question whether it has the power to interfere in what is clearly a State process even before the certificate is filed.

essentialsaltes said:

Supreme Court declines to take action on Trump’s Pennsylvania appeal prior to certification of Biden win

the court’s regular order list for its November 20 conference did not include any action on the case.

The court could take action at its December 4 conference, which is after Pennsylvania’s November 23 deadline for counties to certify the election.

Click to expand...

Isn't this case moot? This is the case about not counting late ballots. But they have already been segregated, and were not included in the public counts. So the decision would have no obvious effect, unless the late ballots are very strongly in favor of Trump.

The Court might well have passed it over on the assumption that they'd end up ruling it moot. In the unlikely case the PA somehow is about to certify Trump, then it might become relevant, and they'd have to hear it. It looks like they'd barely have the time to do so.

The Court generally tries to avoid deciding issues they don't have to decide.

Chances are that when even someone like Ben Shapiro is saying things like "if you're going to make an effort to disenfranchise that many voters on the basis that there was some sort of extraordinary fraud or voting irregularities and allow legislature-appointed electors to decide, then you need to present extraordinary evidence and thus far, that's yet to be seen"
And "this effort, in all likelihood, is doomed to fail"

...maybe it's time to learn how to pick your battles and just acknowledge that Biden won this one.

BobRyan said:

That statement is about "when" the court would hear it.

Click to expand...

Right after Rudy presents all of that evidence he has for widespread voter fraud no doubt.

I guess we should be expecting it in, oh, about two weeks.

MIDutch said:

Right after Rudy presents all of that evidence he has for widespread voter fraud no doubt.

I guess we should be expecting it in, oh, about two weeks.

Click to expand...

It'll be on a Wednesday.

BobRyan said:

My statement is about the fact that SCOTUS would be hearing the case.
That statement is about "when" the court would hear it.

Click to expand...

Their refusal to take a case that is obviously time-sensitive speaks volumes. But yes, we'll see in two weeks.

BobRyan said:

At 8:40 the big news - which is that SCOTUS did not refuse to hear the case - they only refused to accelerate the case hearing.
Now how many of you knew that the case was going to be heard by SCOTUS all along?

Click to expand...

Now SCOTUS has refused to hear the case.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal from Republicans challenging a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed ballots received up to three days after Election Day to be counted to accommodate challenges by the coronavirus pandemic.

essentialsaltes said:

Their refusal to take a case that is obviously time-sensitive speaks volumes. But yes, we'll see in two weeks.

Click to expand...

Or longer.

essentialsaltes said:

Now SCOTUS has refused to hear the case.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal from Republicans challenging a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed ballots received up to three days after Election Day to be counted to accommodate challenges by the coronavirus pandemic.



Or longer.

Click to expand...

I doubt any of our conservative CF colleagues will bother showing up to comment (other than to maybe claim that all of the trump appointed Supreme Court Justices are now, and probably always have been, part of the deep state).

womp womp, and an extra, womp

Elliewaves said:

womp womp, and an extra, womp

Click to expand...

Getting tired of all the winning, personally.

I’m not sure we can read much into this. It’s not a ruling on the merits.

hedrick said:

I’m not sure we can read much into this. It’s not a ruling on the merits.

Click to expand...

It's a ruling on the previous ruling that the previous ruling had merit.

hedrick said:

I’m not sure we can read much into this. It’s not a ruling on the merits.

Click to expand...

In order to make their determination not to hear the case, wouldn't the Supreme Court justices HAVE to at least take a look at the merits and evidence?

"Yeah, the evidence shows that the lower courts ruling is correct and has merit. We're not going to relitigate the case all over again. It will not be heard at SCOTUS. Tough rocks, trump team."