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.

They put those ballots to the side since the ruling was so controversial. (And didn't tally them)

But it's not... All they did was attempt to extend the date that mail-in ballots could be received by 3 days - they still had to be postmarked by 11/3. Part of the justification for this is that Military ballots are given 10 days to be received (as long as they are postmarked by election day). It was an equal protection argument given the concerns about mail delivery issues and the increased mail-in voting due to the pandemic.

Lifeline

They did not need any postmarks at all

????

Protests, looting, burning and violence magically stopped because they won the political war.
No need to fund them anymore if they served their purpose.

Again we're talking 10,000 votes out of an 80, 000 spread so it's not going to change the election one way or the other.

Excuse the source it's the first one I found:https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/19/supreme-court-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-postmarked/

Noted... It's funny. The typical response is "how do we know they set them aside? They just snuck them in." Not realizing that cast ballot counts were determined on 11/3.

Huh, don't remember that part, and I read the entire thing.

Either way, the ones that arrived post-Nov. 4th weren't even counted IIRC.

They were stacked into a corner.

Because the ruling was so fresh.