Message from @Steeler26
Discord ID: 785276864826441748
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
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.```
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
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