'Expert testimony'

You can always pay people to say whatever you want.

That's another damn fact.

Well I'm not talking data. The Pennsylvania supreme Court literally changed the deadline for mail and ballots, and they also prohibited spoilage from signatur e mismatch

If that's not garbage I don't know what is

The legal aspect of this is where there's issues. But one would have to win court cases.

Then it will be litigated! As it should be. Don't know how this makes the whole system not work, or that we need to overturn the results.

Undoubtedly. Still garbage

ain't been too much winning

I mean, I agree, the separation of powers is of tantamount importance.

Then there's one state doesn't get Trump the presidency.

He would need three Pennsylvania Georgia and Nevada

Or Pennsylvania Georgia and some other state.

Sure. That's why a state supreme court should not be more powerful than a state's legislature

Separate but equal

Equal, last I recall.

Then how come it was able to rewrite legislation

In Pennsylvania at least

Because of prior existing legislation that contradicted it.

Legal decisions aren't legislation.

You're telling me that the court can literally change a date that the legislature set and that's proper

And that prior existing legislation had superiority.

That's not what happened... Secretary of the Commonwealth Boockvar was granted oversight of the election by the legislature. Part of that mandate is to ensure safe and fair elections. The GOP legislature didn't like the temporary changes that she made in order to address concerns about the pandemic and sued her. So, there were 2 competing directives that was part of the PA voting laws as prescribed by the PA legislature. The PA GOP decided to pursue a legal case instead of amending to PA laws. The PA SC sided with the SotC in allowing her to make the temporary changes. The PA GOP again decided to pursue the legal case instead of passing a law to block her and appealed to the US SC, who decided to let the PA SC decision stand in a 4-4 decision BEFORE the election. This was all legal.

Now do I agree with the court doing that? No, not really.

That's what courts do.

They've been doing this why get upset about it now?

In third world countries

No, that's actually not what they're supposed to do.

Not in America.

Still can't throw away millions of good faith American votes. It's not about what Trump deserves.

BTW - they did it in Texas, too... https://discordapp.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/793934128624959530

So the courts are rewriting legislation from the bench?

True.

If you're straight up changing dates set by the legislature, then that's a clear violation of the electors clause

In this case it appears so in one case at least.

Okay well it's no better when they do it

Well that's not right...

@Zuluzeit Some. If it’s not too much trouble, would you please direct my attention to a good explanation from a reliable source?

I thought you were talking about rulings on legislation that set precedent @Maw .

E.g: The legislation said no more ballots after arriving after Nov. 4th, despite having postmarks before nov 4th, the SC extended the deadline 1 week to accept pre-4th postmarked ballots.

I think Pennsylvania knows that. If you look at the election results and their website it says it does not include balance cast after 8:00 p.m. on election day. So even if a court were to throw out those extra ballots that came in after election day it wouldn't change the end result.