Not entirely sure how this suddenly makes it constitutional

The Governor had nothing to do with this - other than certifying the election on the day that he was supposed to do so - by law. Seriously, you accuse me of being barely literate and you have absolutely zero facts right.

They could have done it so they could bait People into voting illegally and then throw them out.

I also think Biden and Harris have personally attempted to destroy the lives of at least half of the supreme court, so the odds they let this go seem slim.

Are you just willfully manipulative or just stupid?

That is pretty ironic, no?

Shocker... Attack me when you have no facts to back up your assertions.

The country always suffers under the actions of conservatives @jfindley

Here's the response's opening paragraph. There is literally nothing suggesting that the suit is wrong. Just that it's too big of a step. This is basically saying the suit is correct.: Petitioners [Kelly and others] ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

Put the eggnog down Uncle Fred.

The PA Response makes this clear... Act 77 - a statute - creates a new class of voting that is different from Absentee voting. They cite precedent where this has been done in PA before. They provide backing for the Laches ruling. They show that Republican lawmakers were aware that some may question the constitutionality of the statute and put in a clause that provided 180 days for challenging the statute on constitutional grounds. This would have given standing to anyone concerned before the Primaries. They go on and on. Point by point.

'You can't bake a lynchpin into your legislation, let people operate with it in good faith and then pull it only if things don't go your way.' - Everyone

Fortunately, SC Justices don't stop reading after the first paragraph and understand that they may consider the entire text of the response.

Misuse of the word illegally

That's a pretty big logical leap. What do you mean?

@TaLoN132 do you think act77 is legit?

@jfindley The PA GOP creating a constitutional issue then complaining about it effecting everyone else negatively . Plus all the laws we don’t get passed like decriminalizing drugs,

I think the better question, is there any reason to think the SC is going to think that act 77 is legit?

Not getting a comprehensive stimulus bill passed in March that would have lasted more than a one time payment

Now, no one knew how long this thing was going to go.

I do... The legislature passed a bi-partisan statute to allow mail-in voting. The PA legislature has the job of determining the manner that PA citizens choose their electors - and they cite precedent for making these types of changes via statute vs amendments. I understand the concerns about the temporary changes that were made prior to the election, but those were arguable and the US SC chose to let those stand. When PA Republicans challenged the changes that were made by Boockvar - they held up Act 77 as the valid law that she was violating. They did not make any claim that Act 77 was unconstitutional at that time - they made the opposite claim. This challenge was only brought up when their guy didn't win.

@TaLoN132 If we had a contract we agreed on ur ok with me changing that contract without ur knowledge?

Questions about the constitutionality of state laws are generally left to the State's SC - it's a stretch to think that this is a Federal issue. We'll see, though. I'm not sure that Kelly made his case properly. His lawyers did not make a federal claim in the original complaint. They tried to back there way into it. It could be dismissed on that alone.

Maybe we could make it unconstitutional and they could still choose their electors according to the American voters' votes they received and counted. Sound good?

Yes and the Legislature determined it was going to be Part of their State Constitution and put it up to a Referendum for the Voters. Under that construction the Voters have to Vote to amend the State Constitution.

> @TaLoN132 If we had a contract we agreed on ur ok with me changing that contract without ur knowledge?
@♤amanda Excellent point. That's exactly what the people who voted by mail will ask.

This is not the same... This is PA lawmakers trying to work within their own framework.

When you try to yank the rug out from under them after they voted in good faith.

@TaLoN132 i get that but my union heads don't get to changed the rules for us without us voting on the change.

But the issue is the PA constitution is very specific as to who can vote and how.
They started the process to amend the constitution and then abandoned it because they didn't have enough time.
So they knew their law was going to break their constitution and they passed it any way.

The Contract was Illegal.

Doesn't matter. They now know the will of the voters.

The people have spoken. Eat it.

What's more insulting is that they passed the laws, they refused to rule on them or correct them, then they try to blame the SC for thinking about holding them accountable.

It's like a bank robber blaming the bank.

You made the rule that stealing money was illegal.

How DARE you!

It is a representative democracy. The voters elected their representatives to make laws. That's what they did.

That's incredibly daft. You do understand how the constitution works, right?

And then penalizing the people who used the bank by taking their money. Good plan.

It's a dishonest time to try and change the rules citizens have to follow to vote