Thanks... will look now

Has PA filed a response to the complaint you shared, @Steeler26 ?

``` In the face of Act 77’s deadline, the Pennsylvania Su-preme Court, by a vote of four to three, decreed that mailed ballots need not be received by election day. App. to Pet. for Cert. 80a–81a. Instead, it imposed a different rule: Ballots are to be treated as timely if they are postmarked on or be-fore election day and are received within three days there-after. Id., at 48a. In addition, the court ordered that a bal-lot with no postmark or an illegible postmark must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date. Id., at 48a, n. 26. The court expressly acknowledged that the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not based on an interpretation of the statute. Id., at 43a. It further conceded that the statutory deadline was constitu-tional on its face, but it claimed broad power to do what it thought was needed to respond to a “natural disaster,” and it justified its decree as necessary to protect voters’ rights under the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the State Constitution.```

Just sayin'.

```The court expressly acknowledged that the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not based on an interpretation of the statute.```

Not yet. Response is due Tuesday

@james j 27

This is literal textbook definition legislation from the bench.

And **they admitted as much**.

Taking it to the bench ain't going to help Trump

The life cycle on a case like that might be a while

So far I don't see it that way.... Not to say my mind won't change. But based on what I have read so far the SC of PA is doing what SCs typically do... rule on lower court decisions and interpret state laws as to how they will be applied and their constitutionality

```The court expressly acknowledged that the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous and that its abrogation of that rule was not based on an interpretation of the statute.```

**"unambiguous"**

**"not based on interpretation of the statute."**

The more they can down the road the worse off Trump is

Unless the legislature steps in

Idk

@busillis 27 ?

The courts are supposed to take legislation at its face value, even if it's poorly written.

You asked me how many years I've been to University

It's not their job to change law.

Or maybe I read it incorrectly

That's the legislation's job.

Texting and driving

@busillis oh yeah

Noty

Go

Just relax... I am reading the actual order of the PA SC... instead of snippets. And thus far I see no problem.

I will say this since there was litigation surrounding Act 77 it does not appear Latches applies, so that will help team trump

The SC can't just interpret whatever it wants to when it reads legislation. That's not how the system works.

The Court should have struck it down or given instructions to amend the Statue. Not create Law only allow the Legislature to better define it.

It is actually the job of the State's Supreme Courts to interpret the laws of the States... just like the Supreme Court of the US does.... The issue is whether or not they interpreted accurately. But it is very much their job to interpret the law and apply it to the the facts in any pending legislation. Its a basic function of the SCs

Interpret, not change.

I never said change

Interpretation can change laws inherently, and they literally changed the law, which is really the problem we're talking about.

I absolutely agree that a court cannot simply change legislation. But they can interpret it and tell all lower courts how the law should be applied. That has been happening since the Constitution was ratified.

And yes... I also agree that interpreting a law in a certain way may not be in line with what the legislature had intended, but unless that intent is clear they the courts still get to interpret it.

The recourse of the legislature is to modify that legislation if they feel the court has incorrectedly interpreted it

One problem I see in the Courts Ruling to start with is... Absence of a Post Mark. How do we even know the Envelope went through the US Postal System?

So far as the Legislature's intent is clear then they Court has to go with that, assuming the law is Constitutional. But if the intent is not clear and the law is otherwise Constitutional then the Court can absolutely interpret and thus tell lower courts how the law is to be applied. That is the most basic function of the Highest Courts in each State and in the US.

The US Supreme Court will also have to look at Reasonable Reliance on the Voters Part. The Court will not easily Disenfranchise Voters! Tough Road to Travel.

Yeah very true.
Typically speaking the remedy of some citizens being disenfranchised is not to disenfranchise millions more... I cannot see a rational court ruling to discount all of PA's votes

So I am trying to read what Act 77 modified and its a giant mess of a law... have you guys looked at it? Yikes