🚨🚨BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court DISMISSES Republican's lawsuit seeking to invalidate mail-in

[soothsayer]

Link to tweet

?s=21


Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
🚨🚨BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court DISMISSES Republican's lawsuit seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots and block certification of the election.

Trump and his allies are now 1-39 in post election litigation.

🚨ALERT: VICTORY IN PENNSYLVANIA
democracydocket.com

[Gothmog]

1. Another victory for Marc and the Democrats

[Etherealoc1]

2. Yessss

...now to the USSC, if they would even look at this crap.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. The SCOTUS is not going to touch it

"States Rights" and all. The litigation involved a state law and the State Supreme Court has spoken!

[In It to Win It]

28. "States' rights" when it's convenient

[BumRushDaShow]

35. They allowed these PA state Supreme Court Justices

to completely re-draw the Congressional Districts here in PA back in 2018 just before the blue tsunami.



Meaning that our state delegation went from 13 (R) - 5 (D) to 9 (R) - 9 (D). The state Supreme Court had done this based on the state Constitution's requirement that the districts (both state and federal) be "compact and contiguous" and the GOP had done no such thing when redistricting occurred after the 2010 census.



And the fact that it took this long (the lines were drawn back in 2011) was because at that time, we had a GOP-majority state Assembly, a GOP Governor, and a GOP-majority State Supreme Court. Now we have a Democratic Governor AND a Democratic-majority State Supreme Court.

[Blue Owl]

3. Suck it, Donny

[SunStar]

4. Short but pointed opinion.

I think that like the federal courts around Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court is just Done with this crap

[Kahuna]

11. They're probably at the point of: What now??!

[niyad]

41. Welcome to our DU family.

[Windy City Charlie]

5. The funny thing

The funny thing is Trump's team keeps saying these dismissals and such are what they're wanting in order to take it to the USSC. When in reality, it's another way to continue playing the dumbasses that keep donating money to the cause.

[dubyadiprecession]

9. So much for Republicans respecting states rights!

The Supreme Court wouldn’t waste time on trump’s bullshit!

[keithbvadu2]

22. As Trump takes more than half of money donated for supposed legal fights.

As Trump takes more than half of money donated for supposed legal fights.

[cheezmaka]

26. Very funny

and the money received by donor is ADDITION to the $20k per day that the campaign is paying Guiliani in legal fees! That's why he doesn't mind continuing to file bogus lawsuits. Talking about being "played" like a fiddle by your own partner.....

[treestar]

51. That's stupid too because it's always better to win

and have the other side have to appeal.

[sunonmars]

6. WITH PREJUDICE too

[DeminPennswoods]

29. and a unanimous decision as well

nt

[rsdsharp]

7. Yes!

“ Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner. Petitioners’ challenge violates the doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment.”

Not to say I told you so, but I said they’d dismiss this based on laches last Saturday.

[Cha]

10. Good on ya & TY for that.

[Arne]

14. failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial

Did Sidney Powell get the facial?

[rsdsharp]

16. Not gonna go there.

Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Goodness,

so does that indicate they would have taken up the matter if filed in the days after the election? Sort of like better luck in 2024?

[rsdsharp]

21. No. The law allowing voting by mail was signed into law 10/31/19.

They waited over a year, until after the election, before they filed. If the statute was really unconstitutional, they could have (should have) brought suit last year. They sat on their rights anD tried to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who relied on the law.

[DeminPennswoods]

27. Yes, both Kelly and Parnell ran in the June primary

under the same Act 77 absentee ballot rules. Neither of them thought the law was unconstitutional then.

[dware]

30. Yes you did.

Kudos for calling it right.

[rsdsharp]

36. Thank you. It was sort of a gimme.

This suit is exactly the type of conduct the doctrine of laches was created to address.

[Cha]

8. Rt & TY & Marc Elias/PA Court!

[napi21]

12. When in the hell are these idiots going to recognize they're fighting a lost cause?

They've lost almost every suit but their crack lawyers keerp filin' them. I guess the rate they're getting is worth their time. Of course, DT doesn't pay his bills, so they might end up doinng it ro bono...even if they didnt plan it that way.

[cheezmaka]

32. If I was getting $20k per day for filing bogus lawsuits...

I'd probably keep filing them too...

[bucolic_frolic]

13. How many times they gonna bring that one-trick pony to court?

[Brother Buzz]

19. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

[gratuitous]

17. You can't change the rules after the election is called?

How is that even fair? "Majority rules" sounds suspiciously socialist.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. And that's the end of that!

From PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro -

Link to tweet

TEXT

Josh Shapiro
@JoshShapiroPA
🚨
BREAKING: We just notched another win for democracy.

The PA Supreme Court has dismissed the suit that was attempting to throw out the votes of 2.5 million Pennsylvanians and halt certification.

Jonathan Lai
🙊
賴柏羽
@Elaijuh
The PA Supreme Court dismisses the case brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly that sought to overturn last year’s law creating no-excuse mail voting and to throw out those mail ballots cast in this election.

This is the case the Commonwealth Court had earlier blocked certification in.
Screenshot of the order, which I believe will soon be available at the Pennsylvania courts website. It is too long to copy and paste here, unfortunately.
Image
Image
6:19 PM · Nov 28, 2020

And according to Lt. Governor John Fetterman -

Link to tweet

TEXT

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
If the President’s campaign doesn’t stop losing, the Cleveland Browns are gonna sue for trademark infringement.

Jeremy Roebuck
@jeremyrroebuck
BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses GOP Congressman Mike Kelly's bid to throw out every mail ballot cast in the state -- this was the case that led to Wednesday's quickly stayed order barring further certification of state results.
6:42 PM · Nov 28, 2020 from Braddock, PA

Link to tweet

TEXT

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
·
Nov 28, 2020
Replying to @JohnFetterman
Looking forward to the 4D chess spin from the snake handlers how it’s all been part of the plan.

John Fetterman
@JohnFetterman
Unanimous decision too.
GIF
7:04 PM · Nov 28, 2020 from Braddock, PA

[perfessor]

23. From the decision:

"It is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim," the court wrote in its majority opinion.

I had to look up "cavil," as it is not in my standard parlance. It means "to make petty or unnecessary objections". Sounds about right to me.

[sarcasmo]

25. 1-40 now, right?

[soothsayer]

37. Yep, on their way to 1-50!

[soothsayer]

39. Spoke too soon: 1-39

Link to tweet

?s=21


Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
It's loss 39.

I expect loss 40 on Monday.

Frank Luntz
@FrankLuntz
Replying to @AAWilliams1014
I actually think it’s loss 40.
Check with @MarcEElias.

[wnylib]

31. I'm trying to figure out what

kind of complaint the Trump team is expecting to take to SCOTUS. Are they trying to claim that mail in ballots are invalid on a general principal that they're vulnerable to mistakes or fraud? Like mistakes or fraud don't happen with machine voting? And what about states that were using all mail in votes long before this election? What about DeJoy's interference with the election by making it harder to get the ballots and mail them back in? What about absentee and military votes? Are they supposed to be invalid in the future?

What on earth IS the case they're trying to make?

[dware]

34. Beats the hell out of me trying to figure out what this inept team are trying to do,

other than trying to steal the election.
I sometimes wonder if they even know what the hell they're doing.

[DEM1955]

42. Let them keep chasing their tails,

the end result will be the same.

[gopiscrap]

54. welcome to DU

[louis-t]

45. Rudy is yelling about fraud, but when he gets to court

he says "we're not saying there is fraud."

[TomSlick]

38. This is not a decision SCOTUS should touch.

The decision is based on laches - a venerable equitable rule. When you see a three page appellate decision, there ain't much to argue about here.

[Baclava]

43. It's over. Concede! You LOST! GET OVER IT! lol

[louis-t]

44. I am stunned that they are ruling so fast.

40 lawsuits? How long would it take a normal person to get through 40 lawsuits? 57 years?

[RosevilleSparky]

46. Supreme Court next stop? Don't bet on it.

These clowns are whooping it up about “On To SCOTUS!!” and it’s been the plan all along. Small problem here: if the SCOTUS touches this in any way, IT COULD INVALIDATE EVERY ELECTION HELD IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY; FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL. This isn’t just
Pennsylvania, it could impact EVERY State’s mail-in ballots.

[NutmegYankee]

49. State rulings on procedural grounds are not the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

The case would need to cite a constitutional claim. It didn’t. This case cannot be appealed to federal courts. The other case the 3rd circuit absolutely murdered is a federal case, but because it was dismissed with prejudice as well, the appeals only deal with the motion to dismiss and not allow additional amendments. Even if SCOTUS took it up, all they could do is revive the case to be amended, but after the slaughter in the 3rd circuit, it isn’t going anywhere.

[DesertRat]

47. k&r

[BobTheSubgenius]

48. It makes me wonder how that have that "One."

Worst legal team ever? Considering the source, and the stakes, I'd have to say so.

[struggle4progress]

50. Order (from Democracy Docket)

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/68MAP2020pco-104617959120808426.pdf

... AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2020, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726,1 we
GRANT the application for extraordinary jurisdiction filed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Governor Thomas W. Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy
Boockvar (“Commonwealth”), VACATE the Commonwealth Court’s order preliminarily
enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of
the results of the 2020 General Election, and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the petition
for review filed by the Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Nancy
Kierzek, Derek Magee, Robin Sauter, and Wanda Logan (“Petitioners”). All other
outstanding motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Petitioners filed the petition for review in Commonwealth Court on November 21,
2020, setting forth a facial challenge to those provisions of Act 77 of 2019, establishing
universal mail-in voting in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Petitioners sought a
declaration that the aforementioned provisions were unconstitutional and void ab initio,
and injunctive relief prohibiting the certification of the results of the General Election held
on November 3, 2020. As a remedy, Petitioners sought to invalidate the ballots of the
millions of Pennsylvania voters who utilized the mail-in voting procedures established by
Act 77 and count only those ballots that Petitioners deem to be “legal votes.” Alternatively,
Petitioners advocated the extraordinary proposition that the court disenfranchise all 6.9
million Pennsylvanians who voted in the General Election and instead “direct[] the
General Assembly to choose Pennsylvania’s electors.” Petition for Review at 24.
Upon consideration of the parties’ filings in Commonwealth Court, we hereby
dismiss the petition for review with prejudice based upon Petitioners’ failure to file their
facial constitutional challenge in a timely manner. Petitioners’ challenge violates the
doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing
their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment. It
is well-established that “[l]aches is an equitable doctrine that bars relief when a
complaining party is guilty of want of due diligence in failing to promptly institute an action
to the prejudice of another.” Stilp v. Hafer, 718 A.2d 290, 292 (Pa. 1998)

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners
filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year
after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020,
millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020
Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the
2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent.
Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county
boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the
Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence
in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from
Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory
scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of
Pennsylvania voters.

Accordingly, we grant the application for extraordinary jurisdiction, vacate the
Commonwealth Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any
further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election, and
dismiss with prejudice Petitioners’ petition for review. All other outstanding motions are
dismissed as moot ...

[soothsayer]

52. It's the only time prejudice is good! Great in fact.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

53. K&R, with prejudice.