First 2020 Election Case Reaches SCOTUS - PA Republicans -vs- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

originally posted by: carewemust
Pennsylvania GOP is now asking for Congress to intercede in the Pennsylvania election.

mobile.twitter.com...

Good luck with that! Congress has a very low 12% public approval rate for a good reason.

LOL ... Congress has no position in Pennsylvania's election; see Amendment X.

originally posted by: carewemust
Pennsylvania GOP is now asking for Congress to intercede in the Pennsylvania election.

mobile.twitter.com...

Good luck with that! Congress has a very low 12% public approval rate for a good reason.

At least we can both agree that there is no chance that this will happen.

a reply to: carewemust
This document was added to Docket 20A98 on December 4th.

Added 12/4/2020: www.supremecourt.gov...

You can see the progress of the case by going to www.supremecourt.gov... and entering 20A98 in the search box.

originally posted by: slatesteam
In other news, Orville-Redenbacher stock is on the rise!

buy the rumor, sell the news!

With Alito, they will likely win both averments. With Roberts, it would not be likely. Alito will decide it on the merits, and under U.S. law, the President will win. I will explain why;
(1). Claiming "Latches" as a defense to fraud is a non-starter. "Latches" is an "Equitable Defense" that goes back to the Courts of Equity of King Henry XIII. To claim an equitable defense, you must not have "Unclean Hands". "He who seeks equity, must do equity.". A Defendant accused of "Fraud", cannot defend against it by saying too much time has passed. Especially not 30 days. The fact that the Pennsylvania court held this, shows that they are way beyond partisanship, or mere legal error. It is an easy Bar Exam question to answer(unless you failed it, like most of the Democrats seemed to have(Kamala, Hillary, Mke O, and pretty much every Kennedy.)).
(2). The U.S. Constitution is firm on the State Legislatures deciding the elections. State Executive or Judicial Branches cannot usurp this power, and it is a relatively "Non-Delegable Duty". Those State Actors do not have the Constitutional authority to abrogate it with out following Federal Constitutional Law. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. The Founding Fathers were well versed in State Political Tyrants, and foresaw this.

All things being equal(questionable these days), Trump should win these. He is going to have to keep filling lawsuits piece-meal until all the malfeasance has been eliminated. The U.S Supreme Court will eventually side with him, as they know the Neo-Marxists will eventually come for them too. preply to: carewemust

a reply to: EHowardHuntClub

You had me at King Henry XIII.

You didn't need to follow through with neo-Marxists.

Three words: point of law.

originally posted by: EHowardHuntClub
With Alito, they will likely win both averments. With Roberts, it would not be likely. Alito will decide it on the merits, and under U.S. law, the President will win. I will explain why;
(1). Claiming "Latches" as a defense to fraud is a non-starter. "Latches" is an "Equitable Defense" that goes back to the Courts of Equity of King Henry XIII. To claim an equitable defense, you must not have "Unclean Hands". "He who seeks equity, must do equity.". A Defendant accused of "Fraud", cannot defend against it by saying too much time has passed. Especially not 30 days. The fact that the Pennsylvania court held this, shows that they are way beyond partisanship, or mere legal error. It is an easy Bar Exam question to answer(unless you failed it, like most of the Democrats seemed to have(Kamala, Hillary, Mke O, and pretty much every Kennedy.)).
(2). The U.S. Constitution is firm on the State Legislatures deciding the elections. State Executive or Judicial Branches cannot usurp this power, and it is a relatively "Non-Delegable Duty". Those State Actors do not have the Constitutional authority to abrogate it with out following Federal Constitutional Law. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. The Founding Fathers were well versed in State Political Tyrants, and foresaw this.

All things being equal(questionable these days), Trump should win these. He is going to have to keep filling lawsuits piece-meal until all the malfeasance has been eliminated. The U.S Supreme Court will eventually side with him, as they know the Neo-Marxists will eventually come for them too. preply to: carewemust

You seem to be confused. Fraud has not been alleged in the PA case. Laches is perfectly applicable legal doctrine here. The state legislature enacted the law being challenged. Your points make no sense and are without merit.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Isurrender73

Maybe answers to your questions are forthcoming.

Justice Alito has given the PA Secretary of State until December 9th to respond.

Source: twitter.com...

Today Justice Alito moved the date forward, from Wednesday December 9th, to Tuesday December 8th.

a reply to: carewemust

Probably eager to get it over and done with.

a reply to: djz3ro

It looks like new people keep joining the case. Two new documents filed today.

www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

The Supreme Court has accepted the Pennsylvania case.

mobile.twitter.com...

For the Legal Minds..

Search for Docket 20A98 at www.supremecourt.gov...

What do the 4 entries/documents today (12.7.2020) for Case 20A98 signify?

Thanks in advance.

-CareWeMust

originally posted by: carewemust
For the Legal Minds..

Search for Docket 20A98 at www.supremecourt.gov...

What do the 4 entries/documents today (12.7.2020) for Case 20A98 signify?

Thanks in advance.

-CareWeMust

These are requests by four non-parties to file amicus curiae briefs (latin for friend of the court briefs). These are briefs filed by entities or persons that are not parties to the case but believe that they have useful information to offer or that will be substantially impacted by the decision. The court can choose whether to allow such briefs, which is why the parties first file requests.

Always happy to answer questions, man. If you're not sure what something is, just ask--don't just make assumptions and risk passing along misinformation.

a reply to: johnnylaw16
Thank-you for the information. I hope those "friends" are on the Plaintiff's side.

I suppose the Defense will file their response before the 9am deadline tomorrow.

If I don't ask any questions, it's because I'm assuming something.

Very few things in life I'm 100% sure about, lol.

a reply to: carewemust
It will be an interesting interaction.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: johnnylaw16
Thank-you for the information. I hope those "friends" are on the Plaintiff's side.

I suppose the Defense will file their response before the 9am deadline tomorrow.

If I don't ask any questions, it's because I'm assuming something.

Very few things in life I'm 100% sure about, lol.

And that's fine. There are a lot of things that I'm not sure about in life, and I don't post about those things without doing a lot of research first. There is a lot of misinformation floating around these days, and when you post something that you aren't sure about, some people will assume that it is correct and believe it, even if they shouldn't. I'm just advocating for making clear when you're posting your thoughts or assumptions vs. a well-researched fact.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust
It will be an interesting interaction.

It's good to see reinforcements/supporters arriving for the Plaintiffs in this suit too.

Here's one that arrived tonight: www.supremecourt.gov...
MOD NOTE....PDF file

a reply to: Gryphon66

States can do as they please? Like Jim Crow laws and Poll Taxes?

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Seems odd that a judicial review of a lessor court’s action or inaction would fall under an arbitrary timeframe of less than six months from the initial action.

Snatch the pebble from my hand, grasshopper. Does not seem a prudent legal course of action. Considering the repercussions of getting it wrong by denying petition to address grievances. People can just go right on down the line to achieve satisfaction without engaging the legal system too.

Joe Biden may not have the mental competency to hold the office, but he probably has the wherewithal to know that he doesn’t want to serve as President in exile for his own safety.

Monday, December 7, 2020

Case filed in the U.S. Supreme Court against GEORGIA by Attorney Lin Wood tonight.

It is Attached to Lin's Tweet: twitter.com...