GOP Plaintiffs Ask SCOTUS to Block Pennsylvania Certification

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
From the "It's official", files: GOP Plaintiffs Ask SCOTUS to Block Pennsylvania Certification

Challenging that ruling, the emergency application for injunction, dated Dec. 1 asks the Supreme Court to prohibit the Pennsylvania governor and secretary of state from “taking official action to tabulate, compute, canvass, certify, or otherwise finalize the results of the election.”
...
The case was filed by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and others. They claim that an act passed last year by the state legislature that allows voting by mail without excuse violated the state constitution.
...
The state Supreme Court said on Nov. 28 that the petitioners waited until days before the county of boards of election were required to certify the election results, which could “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters” who voted by mail.

“It is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim,” the court wrote.

Parnell told KDKA that it was a “Catch-22” situation. “Had I filed it earlier, I would have probably not been able to bring the case into court because I wouldn’t have had legal standing,” he said. “So they would have probably said ‘well, the harm that you’re alleging is speculative.'”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And the argument over standing is a bit silly. There was already a primary that was run under the rules, why didn't anyone sue then? They could also get standing based on impending harm (I forget the exact term). And even still, if they sued before and the courts said "no, you don't have standing yet", then you can just refile later.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This has zero chance of this case being pick up by the SCOTUS. I pity you that you believe this NH.

You never know, there's a similar case being made by the inhabitants of a village near where I live that Colonel Sander's chicken is not in fact 'finger-licking good'. Apparently many people claim they have have only witnessed people licking their fingers to remove grease, which would appear to be a practical measure rather than somehow associated with the 'goodness' of the fried chicken.
 
Upvote 0

super animator

Dreamer
Mar 25, 2009
6,223
1,961
✟134,615.00
Faith
Agnostic
You never know, there's a similar case being made by the inhabitants of a village near where I live that Colonel Sander's chicken is not in fact 'finger-licking good'. Apparently many people claim they have have only witnessed people licking their fingers to remove grease, which would appear to be a practical measure rather than somehow associated with the 'goodness' of the fried chicken.
Court cases is not the same thing as food.
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟280,829.00
Faith
Atheist
PA Republicans make changes to the rules of the election, and then want to throw out the results of the election because their own rules weren't constitutional.

The real remedy is to throw out those responsible for making the unconstitutional law, not depriving the people who voted based on the laws governing the election at that time of their voice.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,362
15,448
✟1,095,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And the argument over standing is a bit silly. There was already a primary that was run under the rules, why didn't anyone sue then? They could also get standing based on impending harm (I forget the exact term). And even still, if they sued before and the courts said "no, you don't have standing yet", then you can just refile later.
There was also an election held after ACT77 was enacted. That election was in Nov. 2019.
The blue wave crashed down on Pennsylvania again, as voters from Philly to Delaware County turned left

The political forces that shaped last year’s midterm elections showed no signs of abating Tuesday, as voters turned on Republicans and establishment Democrats alike in races from Philadelphia and Scranton to the suburbs of Delaware and Chester Counties.
 
Upvote 0

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,428
4,839
38
Midwest
✟260,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
From the "It's official", files: GOP Plaintiffs Ask SCOTUS to Block Pennsylvania Certification

Challenging that ruling, the emergency application for injunction, dated Dec. 1 asks the Supreme Court to prohibit the Pennsylvania governor and secretary of state from “taking official action to tabulate, compute, canvass, certify, or otherwise finalize the results of the election.”
...
The case was filed by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and others. They claim that an act passed last year by the state legislature that allows voting by mail without excuse violated the state constitution.
...
The state Supreme Court said on Nov. 28 that the petitioners waited until days before the county of boards of election were required to certify the election results, which could “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters” who voted by mail.

“It is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim,” the court wrote.

Parnell told KDKA that it was a “Catch-22” situation. “Had I filed it earlier, I would have probably not been able to bring the case into court because I wouldn’t have had legal standing,” he said. “So they would have probably said ‘well, the harm that you’re alleging is speculative.'”

Hasn’t this already happened? What is the court going to do, jump in a flux capacitor and travel back in time to prevent this from happening?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,157
4,419
Washington State
✟308,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Given the number of suits the GOP has put before courts that have been thrown out due to lack of evidence, this may not even be picked up by the court.

Just another attempt to stir up the base with false hope.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Has Giuliani ever been laughed at by SCOTUS before? Quite the topper for his career...
I don't think he's argued before SCOTUS, has he? I know before this whole mess he hadn't presented an argument to a federal court for like 30 years.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,048
7,383
✟341,913.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I don't think he's argued before SCOTUS, has he? I know before this whole mess he hadn't presented an argument to a federal court for like 30 years.
His experience to the best of my knowledge has all been criminal work on the trial level. I don't think he has any appellate or even much civil legal work in his background.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
From the "It's official", files: GOP Plaintiffs Ask SCOTUS to Block Pennsylvania Certification

Challenging that ruling, the emergency application for injunction, dated Dec. 1 asks the Supreme Court to prohibit the Pennsylvania governor and secretary of state from “taking official action to tabulate, compute, canvass, certify, or otherwise finalize the results of the election.”
...
The case was filed by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and others. They claim that an act passed last year by the state legislature that allows voting by mail without excuse violated the state constitution.
...
The state Supreme Court said on Nov. 28 that the petitioners waited until days before the county of boards of election were required to certify the election results, which could “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters” who voted by mail.

“It is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim,” the court wrote.

Parnell told KDKA that it was a “Catch-22” situation. “Had I filed it earlier, I would have probably not been able to bring the case into court because I wouldn’t have had legal standing,” he said. “So they would have probably said ‘well, the harm that you’re alleging is speculative.'”

Mike Kelly really is steadfastly determined to have his own job annulled.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think he's argued before SCOTUS, has he? I know before this whole mess he hadn't presented an argument to a federal court for like 30 years.

Given his cavalcade of failures, he still hasn't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums