This will go to the USSC

[task0778]

{It is not possible for the PASC to violate the PA state Constitution anymore than SCTOUS could violate the US Constitution.}

LOL, maybe that depends on the definition of "violate". Certainly supreme courts at both levels 'interpret' their Constitutions as they see fit, sometimes creating new rights out of thin air. At the federal level, the right to an abortion comes to mind, born out of another quasi-right to privacy that isn't in the US Constitution either. And I would not be surprised to see the substantially left-leaning PASC allow no-excuse mail-in voting even though their state Constitution appears to be pretty clear that such isn't legal.

I know, GG wrote this, not you. Not attacking anybody, but these days justice is no longer blind. Nor deaf and dumb either. And the interpretation of a Constitution seems to be somewhat malleable.

 

[Indeependent]

{It is not possible for the PASC to violate the PA state Constitution anymore than SCTOUS could violate the US Constitution.}

You wouldn't lie to me, would you?

A psychopath Nazi like you?



I'm "lying" by posting your words?



Tell me, why are you ghouls so fearful of the RvW law being overturned?

Who do you fear will overturn the infallible prognostications of the Warren court?


You think that the 9 unelected judges on the SCOTUS are the law - that the Constitution and case law are irrelevant, only our divine rulers matter.

Seig Heil.

GG thrives on One World United to supply cheap slave labor.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is not what I said at all, I said the SCOTUS could not tell a State SC they were wrong in the interpretation of their own constitution. Your examples do nothing to disprove that statement from me. SCTOUS can tells a state SC their constitution violates the US constitution, but that is all.

SCOTUS told the FL Supreme Court it could not recount the ballots using a different standard, which was an Equal Protection issue. The also ruled that the recount of ballots had to be completed by the deadline established by Florida law, which was a Florida constitutional issue. No recount was made, and Bush won.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

{It is not possible for the PASC to violate the PA state Constitution anymore than SCTOUS could violate the US Constitution.}

You wouldn't lie to me, would you?

A psychopath Nazi like you?

Yes, this is a correct statement. By their very nature it is not PASC to violate the PA state Constitution anymore than SCTOUS could violate the US Constitution.

You can disagree with them and think their rulings violate the Constitution, but legally it is not possible.

Tell me, why are you ghouls so fearful of the RvW law being overturned?

Who do you fear will overturn the infallible prognostications of the Warren court?

Even if the new court overturns RvW, that does not mean the previous court violated the Constitution.

You cannot really be this stupid can you?

You think that the 9 unelected judges on the SCOTUS are the law - that the Constitution and case law are irrelevant, only our divine rulers matter.

I think it is the job of the 9 unelected Justices on the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. In our legal system they are the final arbitrator of the Constitution.

You may not like this fact, but it does not change anything.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

SCOTUS told the FL Supreme Court it could not recount the ballots using a different standard, which was an Equal Protection issue.

Yes, SCOTUS ruled they were going against the US Constitution. They did not rule that the FL SC was incorrect in their interpretation of the FL Constitution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

GG thrives on One World United to supply cheap slave labor.

Got to have someone to mow my damn lawn.

 

[eagle7-31]

No mail ballots?

How do you think absentee votes are accomplished?

Legal absentee ballots in PA need to be in the election board by election day, not 3 days or 1 week after except for military or overseas ballots.

 

[Lesh]

Legal absentee ballots in PA need to be in the election board by election day, not 3 days or 1 week after except for military or overseas ballots.

Not sure how that relates to my post...or anything

 

[Indeependent]

Not sure how that relates to my post...or anything

You never seem to be sure of anything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, this is a correct statement.

No, that's an insanely stupid statement by a totalitarian statist expressing what you desire, rather than reality.

Yes, you seek a Stalinist dictatorship.

No, we don't currently have one.

By their very nature it is not PASC to violate the PA state Constitution anymore than SCTOUS could violate the US Constitution.

Both can and do violate their respective constitutions.

You can disagree with them and think their rulings violate the Constitution, but legally it is not possible.

Really, then explain how it is the Dred Scott is not longer in force?

In fact your beloved Roe is just about to follow Dred into the shitbin of history.

Even if the new court overturns RvW, that does not mean the previous court violated the Constitution.

You cannot really be this stupid can you?



I think it is the job of the 9 unelected Justices on the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. In our legal system they are the final arbitrator of the Constitution.

You may not like this fact, but it does not change anything.

So, the panel "interprets" and later panels can - and do decide that the interpretations are flawed - violate the Constitution.

You cannot really be this stupid can you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Really, then explain how it is the Dred Scott is not longer in force?

In fact your beloved Roe is just about to follow Dred into the shitbin of history.

Because the SCOTUS ruled differently when they got read it of it. That does not mean that while it was in force it was against the Constitution.

You really cannot be this stupid

So, the panel "interprets" and later panels can - and do decide that the interpretations are flawed - violate the Constitution.

You cannot really be this stupid can you?

They rule differently, they do not rule that the previous ruling violated the Constitution, because it did not until the new ruling.

I guess you can be stupid

 

[busybee01]

Court finds Pennsylvania mail-in voting law unconstitutional, appeal anticipated

(WHTM) – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has found the commonwealth’s no-excuse mail-in voting law, Act 77, is unconstitutional. According to court documents, 14 members of the P…

www.abc27.com

PA mail voting unconstitutional. About time. Vote in person or by absentee ballot, period.

This is one Republican judge.

 

[busybee01]

I thought that they never won any cases challenging these issues from 2020?

SCOTUS? Depends upon the PA Supreme Court, who will have to put their names to their descisions.

The SCOTUS will have no say in this. The PA Supreme Court will have the final say. They will most likely stay the decision while it works it's way up.

 

[jc456]

Why would a question on a state's constitution go to the Supreme Court?

Why did bush gore?

 

[busybee01]

Legal absentee ballots in PA need to be in the election board by election day, not 3 days or 1 week after except for military or overseas ballots.

They should be postmarked by election day to be counted. The IRS requires a return to be postmarked by tax day.

 

[busybee01]

Why did bush gore?

Because Bush v Gore involved federal constitutional issues.

 

[jc456]

Because Bush v Gore involved federal constitutional issues.

Like?

 

[FA_Q2]

The only ignorance is yours. The PEOPLE of California voted to pass an AMENDMENT to their Constitution.

The FEDS shot it down. Which is the point I was argueing.

Now, STFU.

Well, yes they did because the proposition was in violation of the FEDERAL constitution, according to SCOTUS.

So, what part of the federal constitution does act 77 violate? If none, then point us to a case where SCOTUS has ruled a state law was in violation of a state constitution. AFAIK, there is none because GG is correct, SCOTUS does not involve itself with state laws violating state constitutions, it involves itself where state laws and state constitutions violate federal laws and the US Constitution.

The push back here surprises me, jurisdiction is a pretty clear cut concept. The feds simply do not have a say when there are no federal laws whatsoever involved.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, getting past the media bullshit in legal matters is always nigh impossible.

Here is Ch 7 Sec 1, the section the judge ruled was violated.

Chapter 7. - CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA

www.legis.state.pa.us

§ 1. Qualifications of electors.
Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.
1. He or she shall have been a citizen of the United States at least one month.
2. He or she shall have resided in the State 90 days immediately preceding the election.
3. He or she shall have resided in the election district where he or she shall offer to vote at least 60 days immediately preceding the election, except that if qualified to vote in an election district prior to removal of residence, he or she may, if a resident of Pennsylvania, vote in the election district from which he or she removed his or her residence within 60 days preceding the election.
(Nov. 5, 1901, P.L.881, J.R.1; Nov. 7, 1933, P.L.1559, J.R.5; Nov. 3, 1959, P.L.2160, J.R.3; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5)
Age of Electors. The age at which a citizen is entitled to vote was changed from 21 to 18 years of age. See Amendment XXVI to the Constitution of the United States and section 701 of the act of June 3, 1937 (P.L.1333, No.320), known as the Pennsylvania Election Code.

Short, sweet and easy to understand. Unfortunately, act 77 is not short or easy to understand. It is egregiously long and complex as it deals with the specifics of the ballots and voting.

2019 Act 77

www.legis.state.pa.us

And, after wasting far to much time going through that tome, I cannot find anything that even remotely looks like a violation of that section of the constitution. This looks like nothing more than an activist judge making a call because he wants the law struck. If I am wrong, what section in Act 77 violate the cited part of the state constitution? The constitutional section in question is very straight forward. The violations should be very easy to identify.

 

[OldLady]

Why did bush gore?

Okay.