Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: SCOTUS splits 4-4 on PA vote-by-mail fraud case: Ballots three days old will be accepted

  1. #1

    Exclamation SCOTUS splits 4-4 on PA vote-by-mail fraud case: Ballots three days old will be accepted

    Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote-by-Mail Changes; 4-4 Split; Roberts Sides with Liberals

    https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elect...with-liberals/

    Joel B. Pollak 19 Oct 2020

    The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican application to stay the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant the Democratic Party’s request to make several changes to mail-in voting that critics have decried as vulnerable to fraud.

    As Breitbart News reported last month, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled … that ballots received three days after Election Day will still be counted — even if there is no evidence they were postmarked on time.”

    Republicans sought a stay.

    The Supreme Court, however, split 4-4 on the request, leaving the decision of the lower court in place. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court’s liberal minority; the remaining four conservative justices sided with the Republican request.

    Supreme Court splits 4-4, leaves Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in place allowing more time for mail-in voting. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh would have granted GOP request to block the Pennsylvania court’s ruling. pic.twitter.com/MFiQ9EKzSG

    — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) October 19, 2020

    The Court currently has only eight justices, due to the passing last month of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg.

    In an interview with Breitbart News Daily earlier this month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointed out the need to have a ninth judge before the election to decide close election cases.

    Cruz said Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s possible confirmation to the Supreme Court would provide the ninth justice needed to avoid a four-four division over post-election legal battles.

    “It’s one of the reasons why it is so important that the Senate confirm Judge Barrett, because if the Supreme Court only has eight justices, eight justices can divide four to four,” Cruz noted. “An equally divided court has no authority to decide anything. So if we have this chaos of litigation, if the Supreme Court is equally divided, there is no resolution and we’re in a constitutional crisis.”

    Cruz warned, “If the Supreme Court is divided four-four, there is no answer. You just stay in the chaos, and and that’s why I think it is so important to have fully functioning court.”

    Cruz concluded, “There were four justices in Bush versus Gore that were happy to say keep on recounting, keep counting until you find find more Al Gore votes, and that’s dangerous.”

    Barrett is expected to be voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week and to be confirmed by the full Senate next week.

    Pennsylvania is considered a key battleground state in the 2020 presidential election.
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Will be appealed once ACB is on the court.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Will be appealed once ACB is on the court.
    Can you appeal if SC decides not to hear case? I don't think you can but I could be wrong
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Will be appealed once ACB is on the court.
    No, it won't be. SCOTUS is the "court of final appeal" (so to speak).

    It has made its decision, and that is the end of the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Can you appeal if SC decides not to hear case? I don't think you can but I could be wrong
    You can't.

    With a tie (or a refusal by SCOTUS to even hear the case to begin with), the lower court's ruling is effectively affirmed/upheld.

    It will continue to stand unless and until SCOTUS hears some other case which ends up (having the effect of) overruling or reversing this one.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-19-2020 at 09:17 PM.


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    With a tie (or a refusal by SCOTUS to even hear the case to begin with), the lower court's ruling is effectively affirmed/upheld.

    It will continue to stand unless and until SCOTUS hears some other case which ends up overruling or reversing this one.
    Word around the talking head circles is that PA will be the center of the vote fraud scam.
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  7. #6
    Breaking news: Due to COVID-17, the Supreme Court has been hearing most of it’s cases online, using Zoom software. During a break in deliberation, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to become engaged in another video call, eventually dropping his pants and engaging in inappropriate activity. Forensic evidence indicates that the alternative video call was also attended by CNN legal expert Jeffery Toobin and an unknown woman with a username of “Madison Cherri”.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Breaking news: Due to COVID-17, the Supreme Court has been hearing most of it’s cases online, using Zoom software. During a break in deliberation, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to become engaged in another video call, eventually dropping his pants and engaging in inappropriate activity. Forensic evidence indicates that the alternative video call was also attended by CNN legal expert Jeffery Toobin and an unknown woman with a username of “Madison Cherri”.
    Lol...
    just me

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Word around the talking head circles is that PA will be the center of the vote fraud scam.
    I expect there will be plenty of shenanigans - oops, sorry, I mean *alleged* shenanigans - that may afford SCOTUS multiple opportunities to revisit this decision. But those won't come up until after the raging dumpster fire - oops, sorry, I mean *election* - by which time ACB should have been seated.

    Then we shall see what we shall see ... (getchyer popcorn ready ...)



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    No, it won't be. SCOTUS is the "court of final appeal" (so to speak).

    It has made its decision, and that is the end of the matter.



    You can't.

    With a tie (or a refusal by SCOTUS to even hear the case to begin with), the lower court's ruling is effectively affirmed/upheld.

    It will continue to stand unless and until SCOTUS hears some other case which ends up (having the effect of) overruling or reversing this one.
    This is what I mean by appeal. The issue hasn't been settled. No precedent setting case decision has been made. If this election goes into question, this issue will be reheard by the Supreme Court without a doubt, and this ruling will have no impact on that what-so-ever.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    This is what I mean by appeal.
    But that is not an appeal. There are no more appeals to be had on this case. SCOTUS is the end of the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    The issue hasn't been settled. No precedent setting case decision has been made.
    This particular case *has* been "settled." A decision has been made, and regardless of whether it is regarded as "precedent-setting," courts are typically quite reluctant to reverse themselves - especially SCOTUS, and especially especially when the decision for which reversal might be considered was made only a short time before.

    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    If this election goes into question, this issue will be reheard by the Supreme Court without a doubt, and this ruling will have no impact on that what-so-ever.
    Of course this ruling will have an impact on that. Courts don't just ignore their own prior decisions as if they had never happened. Especially not on such a short time scale.

    Some *other* case *might* result in this decision being mitigated or reversed, in whole or in part, but that is in no way assured.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-19-2020 at 11:08 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I expect there will be plenty of shenanigans - oops, sorry, I mean *alleged* shenanigans - that may afford SCOTUS multiple opportunities to revisit this decision. But those won't come up until after the raging dumpster fire - oops, sorry, I mean *election* - by which time ACB should have been seated.

    Then we shall see what we shall see ... (getchyer popcorn ready ...)
    @Occam's Banana

    A hypothetical scenario, just for intellectual curiosity.

    Trump wins the EC by the narrowest of margins.

    PA's EC votes are enough to change the outcome alone.

    Vote totals on 3 Nov show Trump won by, say, less than ten thousand votes.

    Three days later the state announces that mail in ballots that have been swarming in, with post 3 Nov postmarks, have changed the outcome, PA now goes to Biden and with that, the presidency.

    The Marxists have also been successful in gaining control of the Senate.

    In the following days, it becomes clear that many of these ballots are bogus, but the courts refuse to overturn or discount those ballots.

    Does anything happen?

    If so, what?
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 10-23-2020 at 04:53 PM.
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Word around the talking head circles is that PA will be the center of the vote fraud scam.
    Philly always is

  15. #13
    PA Supreme Court now rules that late ballots need not have valid, matching signatures.


    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Ballots Can’t Be Tossed Out over Mismatching Signature

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ing-signature/

    Breitbart News 23 Oct 2020

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday on a key concern surrounding an avalanche of mail-in ballots in the presidential battleground state, prohibiting counties from rejecting ballots because the voter’s signature on it may not resemble their signature on their registration form.

    Two Republican justices joined five Democratic justices in the decision.

    The verdict was a victory for the state’s top election official, Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat who had asked the court to back her up in a legal dispute with President Donald Trump’s campaign and Republican lawmakers.

    “County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the justices wrote.

    Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are locked in a battle to win Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.

    In her court filing, Boockvar had said that any such rejections pose “a grave risk of disenfranchisement on an arbitrary and wholly subjective basis,” and without any opportunity for a voter to verify their signature before their ballot is disqualified.

    The decision comes amid a surge in mail-in voting and rising concerns that tens of thousands of mail-in ballots will be discarded in the presidential election over a variety of technicalities.
    We must picture Hell as a state where everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment. - C. S. Lewis

  16. #14

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    PA Supreme Court now rules that late ballots need not have valid, matching signatures.


    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Ballots Can’t Be Tossed Out over Mismatching Signature

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ing-signature/

    Breitbart News 23 Oct 2020

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Friday on a key concern surrounding an avalanche of mail-in ballots in the presidential battleground state, prohibiting counties from rejecting ballots because the voter’s signature on it may not resemble their signature on their registration form.

    Two Republican justices joined five Democratic justices in the decision.

    The verdict was a victory for the state’s top election official, Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat who had asked the court to back her up in a legal dispute with President Donald Trump’s campaign and Republican lawmakers.

    “County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the justices wrote.

    Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden are locked in a battle to win Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.

    In her court filing, Boockvar had said that any such rejections pose “a grave risk of disenfranchisement on an arbitrary and wholly subjective basis,” and without any opportunity for a voter to verify their signature before their ballot is disqualified.

    The decision comes amid a surge in mail-in voting and rising concerns that tens of thousands of mail-in ballots will be discarded in the presidential election over a variety of technicalities.
    Ripe for fraud. Intended for fraud.

    Now lets watch the ballots flow in PA post election day.
    THE SQUAD of RPF
    1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
    2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
    3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
    4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:

    Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.

    7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    @Occam's Banana

    A hypothetical scenario, just for intellectual curiosity.

    Trump wins the EC by the narrowest of margins.

    PA's EC votes are enough to change the outcome alone.

    Vote totals on 3 Nov show Trump won by, say, less than ten thousand votes.

    Three days later the state announces that mail in ballots that have been swarming in, with post 3 Nov postmarks, have changed the outcome, PA now goes to Biden and with that, the presidency.

    The Marxists have also been successful in gaining control of the Senate.

    In the following days, it becomes clear that many of these ballots are bogus, but the courts refuse to overturn or discount those ballots.

    Does anything happen?

    If so, what?
    I think the critical bit will be the part I bolded and underlined. This would definitely end up going to SCOTUS. ACB will have been seated by then - and assuming the same split as described in the OP, and that ACB sides with the guy who just elevated her, Trump wins. And the left then precedes to completely lose its $#@!, with actions and consequences only to be guessed at ...

    On the other hand, if one or both of those assumptions are wrong, and Biden gets POTUS, things will be less explosive, at least in the short term (the right just isn't nearly as hysterical or prone to "civic" chaos and violence as the left is). In the long run, though, a Biden win under these circumstances might end up providing more impetus to secessionism and separatist sentiments on the right than a Trump win would do, so that could be interesting.

    Pretty much the only thing I'm certain about is that, unless there's a clear (enough) winner, it's going to be a complete, utter and wretched mess ...



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Roberts is just the Bush gift that keeps on giving.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

    Some of you still watch the news, and it shows.

  21. #18
    Wonder what type of sick $#@! they have on Roberts, I'm sure like most of these swamp rats he has a proclivity for children.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-30-2020, 06:43 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-18-2012, 03:06 PM
  3. in case of vote fraud
    By theantirobot in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2007, 12:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •