Why SCOTUS Will Reverse PA Decision

0
511
SCOTUS

The Supreme Court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania moved so fast to help Democrats steal the election, they didn’t realize that the ruling they hashed out doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. Their flawed decision made it much more likely that SCOTUS will have a chance to weigh in on an issue serious enough to blow the lid off the whole fraudulent scheme.

SCOTUS likely to decide the outcome

Every day, it’s looking more and more certain that the United States Supreme Court will overturn a “critical” ruling of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court.

Their decision “could return the electoral votes of Pennsylvania back to President Trump.” SCOTUS could overturn the entire bogus election once they get a chance to put it under their microscope.

Vote-by-mail, it turns out, is a violation of two constitutions. Both the Pennsylvania state version, and the overarching federal one which serves as the basis for all American law.

In 2019 the state legislature created the procedure out of thin air, even though it “clearly violates Article VII, sec. 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Lawmakers think they can do whatever they want, as long as they add some extra weasel wording. That doesn’t nullify the constitution and their legal loophole could turn into a noose after SCOTUS makes a determination.

Under the Commonwealth’s Constitution, there are exactly four classes of voters who can turn in an absentee ballot and no more. The only legitimate voters entitled to vote absentee are “those who cannot vote in person because of work, physical incapacity, religious obligation, or (in the case of county employees) election-related duties.”

Democrats ignored the Constitution and passed the Pennsylvania vote-by-mail law. SCOTUS is expected to confirm that they can’t do that without “an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution.”

No authority to add the provision

The governor was thrilled to help “create” a new option without explaining where he found the authority to do it. After the 2020 election fraud scandal erupted, Republican State Rep. Mike Kelley and his colleagues “challenged the law and lost.” The PA Supreme Court ruled they were too late.

They were wrong. They decided in error that “it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the law.” They improperly applied the doctrine of “laches” which is a rule that “if you wait too long to claim your legal rights have been violated, that’s too bad for you.”

The law was in effect for a year and a half before being challenged and not only that, the legislature wrote in a line that said any challenges had to be presented within “180 days.” SCOTUS won’t let that stand.

Under the liberal way of thinking, Plaintiffs should have sued before the election and lost, then used that as an excuse to file now.

Legally, that argument is total nonsense. The laches doctrine doesn’t apply and “cannot rightly be used to dismiss an allegation that a statute violates constitutional provisions.” SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito already granted injunctive relief. Not only does the law violate the Pennsylvania constitution, it assaults the federal one too.

As AmericanThinker writes, “If a state legislature creates an election law that violates its own state constitution, and this unconstitutional law contributes to determining the outcome of a presidential election, this becomes the concern not only of the people of Pennsylvania but of all Americans.”

SCOTUS is almost certain to determine that the “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors” was so serious that it “would present a federal constitutional question.” The 180 day language and laches doctrine don’t supersede established case law. “There can be no statute of limitations when it comes to challenging the law in federal court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here