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

Attorney Sidney Powell said today:

"There should be at least 3 states before the Supreme Court, with enough electoral votes to change the outcome, before the end of the week."

Short Video Clip: twitter.com...

originally posted by: Ahabstar
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.

I literally have no idea what you are even trying to state here. This is a nonsensical jumble of words.

originally posted by: carewemust
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...

The Court will not accept the case; there is no reason for them to.

a reply to: Gryphon66

States rights only go so far, otherwise gay marriage wouldnt be legal in all 50, nor would abortion. Follow the rule of law instead of bending the ones you like and then you won't have to complain about it. However, it's not constitutional to change voting the way the PA court did.

originally posted by: carewemust
Thursday, December 3, 2020

I'm not sure what the Republicans, led by Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly want the U.S. Supreme Court to do, but it's impressive that the case has reached this level. The SCOTUS has categorized it as an "emergency injunction" request.

If the case is accepted, the Justice to rule on it will be Samuel Alito. Alito is the same Justice who told Pennsylvania to remove late-arriving mailed-in ballots from the vote total, because they were illegal. It's not clear if the state complied.

Here are the questions presented to Justice Alito..

1.) Do the Elections and Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution permit Pennsylvania to violate its state constitution’s restrictions on its lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections?

2.) Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution permit the dismissal of Petitioners’ claims with prejudice, on the basis of laches, where doing so foreclosed any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?

Excerpted from this 50 Page PDF document filing: www.supremecourt.gov...

Docket Case Number is 20A98, for searching at: www.supremecourt.gov...

For those who understand legal terms, what is being requested? (See page 50)

President Trump's legal team is preparing an election-related filing for the U.S. Supreme Court also. If Justice Alito does not accept this case, there is at least one more inbound.

-CareWeMust

RE: The 1st and 2nd part of your question and the 1st and 14th amendments. The question is asking what I was discussing to today about the law to a few people on why the courts are dismissing the law suits from Trump and Supporters of Trump also filing law suits as well. Aka (the Petitioners of the court.) The judges are dismissing them without the cases ever being heard. ( thus with prejudice). Our 14th and 1st Amendment(s) comes into play here.

Section 1- 14th
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws “

I emphasize the last part here. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

The petitioners are citizens of the jurisdiction being that of the United States of America. And are being denied due process and equal protection of the law in which they are entitled. ( U.S. Citizens are being denied there case(s) heard by U.S. judges and courts) thus Equal Protection. Makes a good Bar Exam Question which I think some law professor is writing up now.

First Amendment :

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Your Question refers to the last part here of out first amendment. ( “And to Petition the Government for redress or grievances” ) Thus all U.S . Citizens have the right to petition the government whereby it though the court or other means to seek a remedy . Otherwise How dare that judge deny us our rights to sue in court, especially a civil suit.

I guess these judges are weighing the outcome. They know these case do hold water and they would most likely have to rule in favor of the plaintiff in these Trump civil law suits. What no judge ever wants to do and that is rule against the voters. Judges will use the term disfranchisement of voters just to not hear the case(s), and dismiss it so they wont have too. It will not matter what evidence you have because the case(s) is dismissed. I don't know how some cases are being presented to the court either, some courts may not find merit or some other technicality not to hear it. Cases like this always come back and haunt these judges when there up for a high court . Are judges violating the law? yes. And that’s a big yes, and they know it. They are kicking the can down the road sort of speak until someone calls them out on it like the case mentioned in this post. It's been a while since attending any Law school. I tried to put this in more general terms than legal terms, it would get confusing ,but you get the picture.

I suspect the citizens of the United States may not put with with this much longer. I'm sure the U.S Supreme Court Justices's are going to weigh these civil cases on our constitutional laws as well as there merit. then there is "We The People" In addition to that they will have to put the Republic first and foremost when deciding on any of these cases. it won't be Biden there thinking of, It will be the republic and 73 million angry people that may bring civil war to the republic, that is a very real possibility . I've seen civil war take shape in other countries, some started in the courts just like this. The U.S Military gave me quite an experience in international laws and combat.

Maybe the Lawyers should just stand up addressing the court and remind these Judges about the United States of America before any proceedings begin with this pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. "

( And justice for all. )

a reply to: johnnylaw16

It has merit, yes . but will a court accept hmm .. I think it has good chance. I read about 2/3 of it. its 46 pages will read the rest later. It involves the Secretary of State , backrooms deals, the Democratic party. Makes a good opening for a book on this entire election. I can see where Lin Wood is going with this. Seen a case very much like this before, yes it involved the democrats then, they have done this before. The democratic party members included one speaker of the house the others were mayors and a secretary of state, Dems lost that one in federal court, I do recall that there was one conviction. not sure what state , NM WY, CO, NV ? one of those states. It would be good case law for Lynn

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Replies have just been received and entered on the Supreme Court docket in Kelly's case against the State of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has FINALLY filed its "defense". Although its the equivalent of "Don't arrest me officer, I have to be at work tomorrow."

Source: twitter.com...

The amicus brief for the Republican Party of Pennsylvania was not accepted for filing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The amicus brief for the Republican Party of Pennsylvania was not accepted for filing.

It was filed by the wrong Authority. Refiling is in progress.

Here is a high-level analysis of what Pennsylvania Democrats submitted for this case today.

www.thegatewaypundit.com... thing-no-one-else-ever/

originally posted by: carewemust
It was filed by the wrong Authority. Refiling is in progress.

Another bonehead move by the Trump/Republican legal dream team.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: carewemust
It was filed by the wrong Authority. Refiling is in progress.

Another bonehead move by the Trump/Republican legal dream team.

it was fees and ways, someone is trying to stop things

originally posted by: Dr UAE
it was fees and ways, someone is trying to stop things

Yeah, the geniuses who can't file properly.

Good news.

The Supreme Court has accepted the HUGE Texas election lawsuit.

mobile.twitter.com...

Maybe it will be merged with the existing lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania?

The Supreme Court has rejected Pennsylvania.

Short and to-the-point.

mobile.twitter.com...


Let's see if they will accept Texas.

Fingers crossed!

originally posted by: carewemust
The Supreme Court has rejected Pennsylvania. Let's see if they will accept Texas.

Fingers crossed!

I wouldn’t count on it. Alito to referred the PA petition to the full Court and they couldn’t even get 4 Justices to agree to accept the case. I can’t see them accepting the Texas case, when the relief sought there is even more extreme than in the PA case.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Just so we all understand what's going on here ... you guys are advocating that the Supreme Court of the United States, set aside the legislative authority of the State of Pennsylvania?

No. The legislature violated their own Constitution (PA) by attempting to change the election rules by legislation. They can only do it by amending their Constitution. They started to do so, but realized it wouldn't effect the 2020 election, so they just did it by statue, which violated their own Constitution.

This really isn't that hard to understand - unless you have TDS.

Not only that, you're asking that the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania be discarded which was unanimous?

Yes - because it was blatantly wrong.

You do realize that's what you're suggesting? What happened to the sanctity of Amendment X? States Rights?

PFft.

States who violate their own Constitutions is a State issue - unless it involves a federal election. Then it becomes a federal question, and the federal Constitution is supreme.

originally posted by: carewemust
The Supreme Court has rejected Pennsylvania.

Short and to-the-point.

mobile.twitter.com...


Let's see if they will accept Texas.

Fingers crossed!

Who could have seen this coming . . . ?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: carewemust
The Supreme Court has rejected Pennsylvania.

Short and to-the-point.

mobile.twitter.com...


Let's see if they will accept Texas.

Fingers crossed!

Who could have seen this coming . . . ?

Stevie Wonder!!