Hi HL,
Not exactly. Yes, they are involved to the point that they have asked the PA lawmakers to respond earlier, likely due to the same day deadline. But, after looking over the responses from the PA lawmakers, they can simply shelve it for a few days while they review the evidence. Or, if they do read something that seems like it might be of importance, they can move it along to a hearing before the deadline. Or, they can just say that they've looked over the proffered evidence and that it doesn't seem to be any different than what has already been offered in evidence in the lower courts and just let the lower court's decision stand. Many seem to think that Justice Alito may have changed the response date, merely so it couldn't be argued later that the SCOTUS, didn't hear the evidence in time, if the Wednesday date stood.
SC Justices are pretty smart folk and it's very possible that Justice Alito decided to change the response date so he could honestly say that he saw the evidence in time, but he still isn't going to grant the petitioner's request for relief.
So, just so everyone understands, the SCOTUS may move it along to a hearing right away, or they may not. We will see on the 8th. Quite frankly, I think that if the SCOTUS were to make any major change from the decisions that have already been made, they're going to look like they're siding with Trump. So far, the SCOTUS has not sided with Trump on much. According to one article I read, Trump has the worst win record in the SCOTUS than any modern day president. Sooooo, maybe.
Further, this petition from Rep. Kelly has been filed waaaay too late. The change to mail-in voting in PA was made in Oct. of 2019. There was a 180 day challenge deadline as a part of the bill. Rep. Kelly had no complaint. Then Trump lost and now Rep. Kelly is crying foul. Claiming that 'NOW' the law passed in 2019 should be challenged. Unfortunately, this late filing infers that Rep. Kelly is only doing this to save face with Trump, because he didn't care about the changes when they were made over a year ago. If the SCOTUS follows the PA ACT 77 amendment, then they will throw out the case simply based on standing. Rep. Kelly has no standing to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of the change to mail in balloting simply because the challenge period is closed. If, it is decided to give him standing, then PA would also have to throw out the last election for which mail in balloting was handled under the new amendment.
So, it really becomes quite a sticky situation, if the SCOTUS decides now, to throw out the mail in ballot amendments. As I say, we'll see.
God bless,
ted