I might see arguments of 1st amendment violations in an effort to disqualify mail-in ballots.

Republicans passing a law wont make it immune to Republicans filing a lawsuit against it.

Optics are bad

All I know is that they intend to use its current iteration to change the outcome in their favor, of that I can be certain. Cause the lawsuit filed under act 77, doesn't really cite fraud or impropriety that arises due to mail-in ballots, but solely on how it was passed

I'm just one of those guys where I want Trump to win, but it has to be a clean win.

Anything less would just result in another impeachment fiasco, and he could lose a majority in either chamber that way

In fact it would be likely he would lose both

I don't think the issue is whether or not the election could be extended, it is the proper controls in making that decision. From everything I've read up until this point, that is power the soley rested with the PA legislature. Even Act 77 doesn't seem to delegate the power to change deadlines, but I admit I've only scanned Act 77 and haven't gone through it in depth so I admit I may be wrong.

They could probably win the act 77 is they file after there arent votes on the line but they want votes on the line

All I know is that before, the judge wrote they had no standing because there were no injuries and that was prior to the election. After the election they filed again but wrote they filed too late.

I'm not gonnah hold a grudge against the Judge though, because ruling the case on its merits would result in a very unsavory outcome

So I can understand if they don't want to rule in its favor,

I don't think Trump is a very good president but I really like his supporters and I think Biden and Harris are trash and will do a lot of damage to the country with their policies and the agenda they are pushing. I was never really opposed to Democrats until the last few years.

but I feel the inevitable is just being delayed should it file for emergency appeal to the SCOTUS, which I think Alito sits over the circuit that oversees PA

@Adam135, you just advanced to level 16!

I really liked Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard during the primary races, the idea that Joe won the nominee by doing nothing really speaks volumes about how messed up the DNC is.

I think the problem is that election procedures are codified by both the PA constitution and PA legislative and seems to have been modified by the judicial decision. I'm not okay with that. Again, I've only skimmed Act 77 and open to evidence that the power to change election deadlines was delegated explicity by the legislature to the Secretary of State or other authorized party. Just haven't seen that specified in what I've had time to read.

I haven't read to much on it, I believe that to an extent the case does have merit and standing. But even if the plaintiffs are undoubtedly right, it would result in a very controversial decision.

Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard would have been much better than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I agree wholeheartedly.

They didnt deny it for controversy it rips people rights away that followed the law and voted

The idea of weeding out non legal ballots, I'm fine with, but cancelling all legal mail-in ones is a line you don't want to cross.

https://youtu.be/I8u4ldK3t8g

You know. I haven't seen much evidence of election fraud in GA and AZ. I don't think PA, WI, and MI are enought to change the presidential outcome so I don't know that it would that controversial. I would like to see these states smacked down to be honest. Even if there is no extensive fraud in these states (which I highly doubt) they should be smacked down for the plain fact that they are competent enought to run elections that are beyond reproach. But that is probably just me.

I know, but most people don't realize it's because of people like Biden and Harris that Trump won in the first place. By subverting more populist candidates to their own corporate leaning ones that have nothing but contempt for middle and lower class people.

I didn't read it that way... There seemed to be competing imperatives: (1) the Sec of State is charged with ensuring a free, safe and fair election to the best of their ability (essentially); and (2) mail-in ballots must be received by 8PM on election day. Boockvar asserted that in order to ensure a safe and fair election, it would be prudent to extend the deadline for receiving ballots postmarked on or before election day. They also cited a equal protection issue because military mail-in ballots must be accepted up to 10 days after the election. In allowing Act 77 to stand, the PA SC asserted that the Sec of State's obligation to provide a safe/fair election outweighed being pedantic on the date mail-in ballots are received during a pandemic.

so while it's likely he'll lose now, under a Biden/Harris administration, they'll just prime him to win in 2024.

I'm not sure if this occurred in PA, but an old suit was that ballots were cured in some counties by allowing workers to call voters and fill in missing information, but the same treatment wasn't done for other counties where ballots ended up being disqualified.

I don't know if that's still in any of the standing suits ongoing right now

Again, it comes down to wording and intent. Does a safe and fair election include extending deadlines? I personally don't think it does as worded though personally I don't see any issue with extending the deadline. It is reasonable but extensions also leave room for fraud and other malfeasance. Should have just been explicitly specified by the legislature so there wasn't this gray area.

It's been a long night, see ya'll

Claiming dominion paper ballots cant be handed counted and the GA recount never happened is an odd hill to die on for the kraken

The case you are making on act 77 seems stronger Linuxace. They just saying you cant change the rules post election

Personally, I think the damage has been done. I have serious doubts about the results of at least three states and to me, it doesn't matter that it won't affect the election results. It matters that someone in this country think they are more important than everyone else and can tamper with results (with the implicity support of one party). The worst thing that can happen is that people lose faith in the process.

But executive power often extends to making some limited tweaks at the state and potus level that's grey

It's more that the decisions weren't cut and dry. Should the judiciary be able to change things that appear to be reserved for the state legislatures?

I personally think that is dangerous.

Can be but checks and balances cant be perfect

They don't have to be perfect to be trustworthy.

Their only purpose for existing is cancelling higher authority

They couldnt take the case to its merits though it's just delayed of they want to modify the law post election probably can

Could one competently argue that had Trump not continuously claim that the election would be rigged, these affiants are unlikely to have been "on alert" so intently looking for fraud and evaluating unknown circumstance as suspicious because they were looking at everything assuming malfeasance?