@busillis I hear it's lovely. I've never been, though. Lots of places I just don't have the time :(

Hm. When was that? @busillis I was there like 4 years ago

@Maw that's the only thing that might work and it's not going to matter cuz it's

25 years ago 27

@Maw Did you see my post on Act 77? You might have been otherwise occupied...
https://discordapp.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/785270068808122389

Damn it might even be longer than that

@Maw. We agree.

I don't actually know how old I am my wife keeps up with that

Again, I know absolutely nothing about it (Act 77) - but if you have a link that provides some facts and history of the issue without too much biased fluff I would appreciate it

Giuliani got the covid the plot thickens

@TaLoN132 I literally responded to it -- twice.

This disease is so anti republican

Yeppers... and the poor lady he farted will surely get it

@JD~Jordan butterflies

@Dedkraken. Take Two and call me in the Morning!....lol

> Then they just revealed his identity in the weird hearings
@Dedkraken I just skipped to the Spyder part in that document. I don't know how these people put their pants on in the morning by themselves.

Sorry... Don't see the response to the message where I quoted the PA constitution and offered what appears to be the issue to be decided. Doesn't matter.

All good. @TaLoN132 It got confusing when people got sidetracked.

I have a better chance of flapping my arms and flying to the Moon

https://youtu.be/lNiVi3yMgTo?t=2774 @JD~Jordan Should be timestamped appropriately.

Yea I’m familiar with both cases and the different issues.

It's a good thing Giuliani probably hasn't practiced in 20 or 30 years

Fox News not gaining new subscribers and loosing viewership.

The other young lady and the kraken lady look like morons

I will try to take a look. Was hoping for a read, but beggars can't be choosers. Thanks

Cool... Do you have any thoughts about this breakdown?: https://discordapp.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/785270068808122389

What status screenshot of your bitfinex account?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

That might help you on 77 with regards to the original issue in front of SCOTUS.

The other 77 issue for this Tuesday is https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162573/20201203162739451_Final_Emergency%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction.pdf

I know it’s been shared but in case you missed it

I guess it's YouTube analytics

... will we be able to get our collective wasted time back...

@Maw - so far it looks like the Supreme Court of PA interpreted the law and ruled on its constitutionality... not changed it. Will keep looking but just because a Court goes into detail about how to interpret a law does not mean they are modifying.

Beginning of week three well... maybe longer

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**.