Question: Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court

[Archivist]

From the link:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito changed a key deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a lawsuit from Republicans seeking to flip the state election's result from Joe Biden to President Trump.

On Sunday, Alito moved the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respondfrom Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 4 p.m. to Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 9 a.m., the day of the state's safe harbor deadline
​

The Supreme Court is already involved in the election.

But this doesn’t mean that the high court will hear the case.

 

[hislegacy]

But this doesn’t mean that the high court will hear the case.

It’s the Supreme Court who is asking the State to respond. That means they are involved.

 

[hislegacy]

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito changed a key deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a lawsuit

But this doesn’t mean that the high court will hear the case.

What do you think they are doing right now, ordering popcorn?

 

[hedrick]

What do you think they are doing right now, ordering popcorn?

They’re trying to decide. But if they get involved, it’s not necessarily about this election. They could have problems with the law, but realize that voters used it in good faith. So decisions would affect future elections. It’s very unlikely based on their other actions that they will throw out votes. It’s not even clear that they can.

 

[Archivist]

It’s the Supreme Court who is asking the State to respond. That means they are involved.

I didn't say they aren't involved, did I? I said it doesn't mean they will hear the case. Two different things.

 

[Archivist]

What do you think they are doing right now, ordering popcorn?

They are simply changing a deadline.

 

[Hank77]

They are simply changing a deadline.

Law and Crime 12/05/2020

Though Alito originally called for response arguments from the Commonwealth to be filed by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 9th, the case docket was changed Sunday morning to move that deadline up to Tuesday, Dec. 8, by 9 a.m. The change is critical. Pennsylvania’s members of the electoral college are due to meet at noon on Dec. 14th in Harrisburg to cast their votes for president. As Law&Crime has previously reported, and as Kelly’s arguments point out, federal election law sets a so-called “safe harbor” deadline which requires controversies “concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures” to be determined “at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors.” Alito’s original Dec. 9th deadline failed to take that window into account. His new deadline does.
Alito Demands Briefs in Pennsylvania Congressman’s Lawsuit to Flip the Election (UPDATED)

 

[miamited]

It’s the Supreme Court who is asking the State to respond. That means they are involved.

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

 

[A_Thinker]

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

... of the two bodies, the PA Supreme Court said that they didn't want to disenfrancise millions of earnest PA voters based upon such an after-the-fact legal filing. And the PA Supreme has more of a compelling interest in HOW the PA election actually operated.

I highly doubt that the US Supreme Court is going to take a different position. Their only interest is in a valid result which reflects the will of the electors in PA (which is correlated, via the PA process, to the will of the people in PA).