The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday overturned a lower court’s order blocking election officials from certifying the results of the 2020 election. The court also dismissed the case with prejudice.
In a Per Curiam opinion, the state’s top court ruled to vacate Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough’s injunctive relief that would have prevented the state from taking further steps to complete the certification of the presidential race.
The court said the petitioners had failed to file their challenge in a “timely manner,” as they had filed their suit more than one year after the enactment of Act 77—the law central to the case.
But…
Chief Justice Thomas Saylor issued a separate opinion agreeing to reverse the preliminary injunction. However, Saylor said he believes the Republican petitioners should still be able to argue their case about the constitutional validity of Act 77.
“I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme,” Saylor wrote.
Justice Sallie Mundy joined in that opinion.
ht/ stirrin’
Earlier, Lurker sent in this ->
Right-o, Chief. Kick that nasty can down the road.
was has been seen cannot be un-seen.
This election was a fraud and everyone knows it. Those complicit in the fraud are traitors attempting a coup.
As someone commenting on the original article pointed out, had they filed within the one year timeframe specified by the court, the court would likely have also dismissed that lawsuit on the basis that no one had standing, as no one had been harmed by the enactment of that law at that time.
“…However, Saylor said he believes the Republican petitioners should still be able to argue their case about the constitutional validity of Act 77.
“I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme,” Saylor wrote…”
Not to be a nattering naybob of negativity, BUT…the original lawsuit was all about challenging the constitutionality of the mail-in voting scheme. Saylor reversed it on a technicality (past the one year limit). And then he says, oh but go ahead and resubmit based on the argument of constitutionality…even though my technical objection still exists.
IT’S A DELAY TACTIC.
@Anonymous November 29, 2020 at 12:18 am
“…the court would likely have also dismissed that lawsuit on the basis that no one had standing, as no one had been harmed by the enactment of that law at that time…”
Oh, so if I time my unconstitutional change in the state constitution in such a way as to not harm anyone for a year, when real harm happens after a year…well, too bad so sad.
Bullshit. The original change to the constitutionally mandated voting process was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I cannot for the life of me believe that there is a one year statute of limitations on an illegal change in the state constitution.
Careful Pennsylvania, you’re endangering your privilege to be one of the fifty US States.
If you cannot see that the fix is in, how much more stupid can you be? WTF??
dimoKKrats delenda est!
So a effort to stop a fraud that dumped hundred of thousands of illegal votes into an election can’t go into effect because legal votes mixed in with them might not be counted. What about the fraudulent votes that would basically nullify legal votes?? More brainless judges that are hidden deep in the back waters of the swamp.
“… had they filed within the one year timeframe specified…”
let me get this right-
they law suit pertains to mailed in ballots (many unsolicited) that were received and accepted past the closing of polls on election day. That acceptability was enabled by the pennsylvania supreme court- the extension of a deadline. Now the suit pertaining to that extension is being dismissed because it doesn’t meet a deadline?
it really is 3 card malarky
I believe judges are elected in PA so they aren’t going to be quick or willing to delve into voter fraud. The whole place is run by crooks.
Okay apparently Sean Parnell, one of the plaintiffs, says “…this was expected, stay tuned, it’s not over…”
https://twitter.com/SeanParnellUSA/status/1332835597556256773?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw