Interesting New Lawsuit Filed In PaState Court by PA GOP Challenge mail votes

[mikelets456]

Interesting New Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania State Court by Pennsylvania GOP Challenging Legality of Vote-By-Mail

Yesterday several Pennsylvania Republican Party officials and individual Republican voters filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief based on a claim that the legislation which adopted “no excuse” eligibility for absentee voting was an illegitimate amendment of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew...y-mail-n283630

[Walleye Hunter]

This suit piques my interest and I wondered how they could just change our election laws by themselves on a whim the way they did. This will end up at SCOTUS, should they chose to push it that far.

[pyld]

This suit is performance art by Kelly and Parnell is get more cred from the newsmax crowd. If you believe it will work, you are the fish at the table.

Act 77 had enabling language that says, effectively, constitutional challenges to the changed bits had to be heard by 180 days from enactment. Also, google “laches.”

No, it won’t make the Supreme Court. Hate to burst the bubble—they aren’t going to disenfranchise a few million people post-facto.

[dawkins20]

This suit is performance art by Kelly and Parnell is get more cred from the newsmax crowd. If you believe it will work, you are the fish at the table.

Act 77 had enabling language that says, effectively, constitutional challenges to the changed bits had to be heard by 180 days from enactment. Also, google “laches.”

No, it won’t make the Supreme Court. Hate to burst the bubble—they aren’t going to disenfranchise a few million people post-facto.

Exactly accurate. The people here who think Parnell and Kelly are acting in good faith instead of being publicity whores are simply not paying attention. Any major challenge to election procedures like this always has to be done well before the election. See the Texas case where a Trump appointed conservative judge laughed the plaintiffs out of the courtroom a few weeks ago for suing to block all votes from drive in vote drop locations around Austin. The judge basically said the locations had been open for 6 weeks or more and the lawsuit filed to invalidate all of these ballots days before the election was clearly in bad faith.

[t1066]

This suit is performance

Welcome back.

[chewsAside]

This suit is performance art by Kelly and Parnell is get more cred from the newsmax crowd. If you believe it will work, you are the fish at the table.

Act 77 had enabling language that says, effectively, constitutional challenges to the changed bits had to be heard by 180 days from enactment. Also, google “laches.”

No, it won’t make the Supreme Court. Hate to burst the bubble—they aren’t going to disenfranchise a few million people post-facto.

So Basically You're saying "if we pass any Unconstitutional law and you don't find out about it within 180 days ....too bad its the law now and you can't change it "
Well Hell then Why are the anti gunners still trying to get rid of the 2nd ? I think their 180 days was up a long time ago

[pyld]

So Basically You're saying "if we pass any Unconstitutional law and you don't find out about it within 180 days ....too bad its the law now and you can't change it "
Well Hell then Why are the anti gunners still trying to get rid of the 2nd ? I think their 180 days was up a long time ago

I'm not saying it. The Republican-majority and bipartisan coalition in the PA legislature added language to Act 77 saying, (paraphrased), "any Constitutional challenge to the new bits must be lodged with the PA Supreme Court within 180 days of the enactment of the legislation."

That was done to prevent someone from trying to disenfranchise the electorate after an election had been held with the new rules. Or, it was done to prevent exactly the performance art which is being undertaken now.

Such statutory enablement language isn't present in the 2nd Amendment. You are comparing the actual Moon to a tangerine.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

I'm not saying it. The Republican-majority and bipartisan coalition in the PA legislature added language to Act 77 saying, (paraphrased), "any Constitutional challenge to the new bits must be lodged with the PA Supreme Court within 180 days of the enactment of the legislation."

That was done to prevent someone from trying to disenfranchise the electorate after an election had been held with the new rules. Or, it was done to prevent exactly the performance art which is being undertaken now.

Such statutory enablement language isn't present in the 2nd Amendment. You are comparing the actual Moon to a tangerine.

Hardly. Any challenge within 180 days and the courts would have said no one had standing.

[pyld]

Hardly. Any challenge within 180 days and the courts would have said no one had standing.

I’m certain they would’ve heard it.

As predicted, this case was kicked for being time barred. Even the Republican dissent would not have granted an election do over. Parnell is continuing with the “part of the plan” nonsense for the low-information audience.

[EWTHeckman]

So, it*s somehow okay to violate Constitutional Law if you shout, *Olly olly oxen free!* at the right moment? I must have missed that in the PA Constitution or any serious discussion of how a constitution works. Can anyone point me to a reference?

Rule of Law is dead. The funeral is scheduled for December 14th. Internment will be January 20, 2021.