-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
PA Judge Rules In Favor of Trump
- Thread starter Reformed1689
- Start date
Scott Downey
Well-Known Member
It helps but is not enough to flip it I think, will have to go Supreme Court.
They need to prove voter fraud flipped enough states to prevent a Trump win in order for the court to flip the election.
Trumps lawyers are putting together the pieces of this fraudulent election steadily.
They need to prove voter fraud flipped enough states to prevent a Trump win in order for the court to flip the election.
Trumps lawyers are putting together the pieces of this fraudulent election steadily.
Yeah, it's going to go up to SCOTUS, and Biden ought to prepare for the worst - not just all those new Trump appointees but Clarence Thomas probably remembers his confirmation hearings when Biden was Chair quite well.
From what I can gather, this judge ruled that the PA Secretary of State (a real lefty hack) did not have the authority to extend the deadline for the mail-in ballots. This could get sticky, here is the law that authorized mail-in ballots a year ago:
2019 Act 77
In section 7:
“(ii) An absentee ballot cast by any absentee elector as defined in section 1301(i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (n), an absentee ballot under section 1302(a.3) or a mail-in ballot cast by a mail-in elector shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if the absentee ballot or mail-in ballot is received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.”
then in Section 11:
“Section 11. Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void. “
Nonseverable? That could be used to strike down whole law then. What a mess of an election.
From what I can gather, this judge ruled that the PA Secretary of State (a real lefty hack) did not have the authority to extend the deadline for the mail-in ballots. This could get sticky, here is the law that authorized mail-in ballots a year ago:
2019 Act 77
In section 7:
“(ii) An absentee ballot cast by any absentee elector as defined in section 1301(i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (n), an absentee ballot under section 1302(a.3) or a mail-in ballot cast by a mail-in elector shall be canvassed in accordance with this subsection if the absentee ballot or mail-in ballot is received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.”
then in Section 11:
“Section 11. Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void. “
Nonseverable? That could be used to strike down whole law then. What a mess of an election.
Scott Downey
Well-Known Member
So you assert that the Supreme Court is not going to rule on the merits of any case they decide to review, but according to who appointed them, as well as personal grudges? That would be a violation of their oaths.
You should keep in mind that Justice Kavanaugh has already sided against the Trump Administration in regard to a ballot challenge before the election.
“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in the majority. Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, dissented.
“New Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the case ‘because of the need for a prompt resolution and because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings,’ court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.”
It’s only a very small number of votes. It won’t change the results of the election in Pennsylvania.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
What part of "START" did you not understand?
The votes in question were not included in the official vote totals, so it changes absolutely nothing.
Changing no vote totals is not “a start.” Since no one knows if the greater portion of those votes were for Trump or Biden, that’s also potentially a loss.
But sure, there are more legal challenges to come, and this seems to be one of the only cases Trump’s team has won since the election.
I’m still following all of the stories of alleged fraud and I haven’t seen any real evidence.
I even spent two hours today to listen to the interview of the USPS letter carrier who overheard a few words of a conversation and went to Project Veritas who wrote an exaggerated affidavit for the USPS employee. After careful discussion of what he heard, he heavily revised his statement.
I have not studied this carefully, but it seems correct to me that Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar did not have the statutory authority to change election law a few days before the election. However, I do not think the segregated votes likely will make a difference. I was not able, though, to find just how many ballots this might be. Even RealClear Politics, who just a day or two ago had Biden with only 259 electoral votes, has now projected the 20 Pennsylvania electoral votes will go to Biden, giving him a projected 279 electoral votes. According to them, this is 99% counted, but again, it is not clear to me whether there is another 1% of other votes, or this 1% represents the segregated votes. RealPolitics count is as follows:
Biden 3,399,869
Trump 3,343,350
So Trump would have to pick up 56,519 votes just to tie in PA. I have looked over the electoral votes, and it seems to me President Trump has no path to victory without picking up Pennsylvania. (This barring, of course, some major turn of events that does not appear to me to be happening.)
Biden 3,399,869
Trump 3,343,350
So Trump would have to pick up 56,519 votes just to tie in PA. I have looked over the electoral votes, and it seems to me President Trump has no path to victory without picking up Pennsylvania. (This barring, of course, some major turn of events that does not appear to me to be happening.)
No, it wouldn't be grudge thing, more of an ideological split a la Bush and Gore with Florida twenty years ago.
Oh yessum, the NC 5-3 decision, who knows what's going on with Brett Kavanaugh, think in NC he thought the state election board did have the authority to extend the deadline under some emergency power clause in their state constitution. BK thought PA did not, that's why he went with the conservative bloc in that case, the 4-4 tie:
Supreme Court turns away PA GOP effort to block extended period for turning in ballots
so the order stood. He'll probably rule the same way here but you never know.
Giving the election to Trump via SCOTUS is not a good idea unless the fraud was proven to be rampant. The audit, canvass, recount thing going on in those states will hopefully answer some questions. Still afraid ANY outcome will not go over well with half the voters. this election is rots of ruck.
Oh yessum, the NC 5-3 decision, who knows what's going on with Brett Kavanaugh, think in NC he thought the state election board did have the authority to extend the deadline under some emergency power clause in their state constitution. BK thought PA did not, that's why he went with the conservative bloc in that case, the 4-4 tie:
Supreme Court turns away PA GOP effort to block extended period for turning in ballots
so the order stood. He'll probably rule the same way here but you never know.
Giving the election to Trump via SCOTUS is not a good idea unless the fraud was proven to be rampant. The audit, canvass, recount thing going on in those states will hopefully answer some questions. Still afraid ANY outcome will not go over well with half the voters. this election is rots of ruck.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Even if it came to that scenario, don't count on Trump winning. It would be the death of the Republican Party to vote Trump in against the will of the people.
Actually, it wouldn't do a thing to hurt the GOP. You are forgetting that this country's voters have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to disputed elections and, at least in the most high-profile cases, the one the courts crammed down your throat, go on to win a second term.
This time it's different than Gregoire and Franken - they both ended up being declared the winner after they found all those votes days and weeks after the election. Agree or not, SCOTUS did stop the Florida recounts so Bush became POTUS. They all won a second term easily.
This time it's different than Gregoire and Franken - they both ended up being declared the winner after they found all those votes days and weeks after the election. Agree or not, SCOTUS did stop the Florida recounts so Bush became POTUS. They all won a second term easily.