@Dreadnaught Hey, we're going to throw your vote away because a bunch of Democrats screwed up making the law that allowed your vote. Sorry for your luck.

I didn't mean it that way... I was pointing out that you were comparing apples and oranges. It's not a valid argument, in my opinion, to say what if it was about slavery, because it's not about slavery. Also, the point about bi-partisanship is to point out the hypocrisy of Republican lawmakers claiming a law that they passed in good faith is suddenly unconstitutional. This isn't a case where a Democratic legislature unilaterally forced an unconstitutional law on the PA people. And... If Trump had won, they would be shouting from the rooftops that Dems were trying to overrule the will of the people by challenging this law. It's just intellectually dishonest.

Trump will never quit Hannity. Relationships have their ups and downs but in the end, there is mutually parasitic love.

It's about "if it's not constitutional, it doesn't matter who passed it"

He recently retweeted tucker, this will help him get some fans he lost back @Zuluzeit

States should be held to the standard 'Our election is only going to count if we can conduct it beyond reproach'. Just by systemically excluding observers the elections should be thrown out.

Do you disagree with that principle?

Post zero if you've eaten gas station sushi?

The US S.Ct may have discretion to hear appellate cases, but when they have original jurisdiction cases - why would the Constitution not compel them to hear those cases and issue a ruling?

That would mean no election in US history was valid...

To be fair, I would have held onto that ace up my sleeve too, until I saw the results.

This is true 😄

The constitution was a coup

The constitution was used in a way that it was not intended by telling the voters to vote only to then take it back

It is also about hypocrisy... They knew about possible constitutional concerns - it was baked into the statute. They had plenty of opportunities to challenge it - within 180 days of its passing; after the primaries this Spring; when they were challenging the temporary changes that Boockvar prior to the election... They had all those opportunities to raise their concerns about constitutionality and only chose to claim it when Trump was not declared the winner.

And they had a election under act 77 prior to the general election

We need a lawsuit to make Texas purchase and use dominion machines so we have the same standard of votes.

@Dedkraken, you just advanced to level 24!

@TaLoN132 i absolutely agree its dishonest. I feel it was dishonest from the get go. The rules seem clear and people didn't follow them. Act 77 is dishonest and all that has followed. What is the remedy? That is the true question.

Do any of those facts make the law constitutional?

@♤amanda that’s not the dishonest part

The dishonest part is using a law you passed to invalidate votes that aren’t in your favor

They aren't constrained by the current set of legislators. They're constrained by the past.

The obvious remedy is the one they dont want. Fix it for next election 🤔

That the current set failed doesn't make what the past set irrelevant.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/paxton-lawsuit-battleground-states/2020/12/08/id/1000533/?ns_mail_uid=cc276bf4-6041-4f02-a197-eeea3e4a314b&ns_mail_job=DM171740_12082020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102jazsfd

We know

More failure lawsuits incoming

Failures are opportunities...

Well In this case opportunities to fail again

How much money are they investing in this circus??

Trump raised nearly 200 million in personal wealth over these bogus accusations

I bet they are spending 10 million and scamming 400 million all said and done

Wear the failure like a Scarlet letter?

Good pay check.

After all those hunter Biden nonsense rants that are setting the Trump kids up for life 🤣

I'm not sure... I think there is a case for it being constitutional... I also think there is a case for the PA SC being the one to decide if it is or not... And, I think that if for some reason it was found to be unconstitutional, that it would be a fair approach - that in the absence of proof of widespread voter fraud and given that PA citizens voted in good faith with a reasonable expectation that they were voting legally - to allow the results to stand and order that the legislature address the constitutional concerns post-election. This is in keeping with remedies in the past where wide-spread voter suppression occurred in Southern states - where they let the current results stand and try to fix it going forward.

They were all set.. the second they were born

A lot of “ no standing” ploys out there. The PA Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. How is it that anyone who does question it, have standing? If that language is not considered definitive, how can any language of a ruling be considered paramount over it - as a practical matter.

Kraken is sacred.

Well the Plaintiff Mike Kelly didn't vote for the Act. So he has grounds to sue yes?