Truth, Inspiration, Hope.

Supreme Court Justice Orders Pennsylvania to Respond to Republican Lawsuit

Published: December 8, 2020
Supreme Court Justice Orders Pennsylvania To Respond To Republican Lawsuit
The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Pennsylvania court to respond to Mike Kelly's petition. (Image: YouTube / CC0 1.0)

Washington Examiner — @dcexaminer tweet:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito moved the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond from Wednesday, Dec. 9 at 4 p.m. to Tuesday, Dec. 8 at 9 a.m., the day of the state’s safe-harbor deadline.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice, Samuel A. Alito Jr., has ordered the Pennsylvania state officials to respond to Rep. Mike Kelly’s petition a day earlier, that is by 9 a.m., Dec. 8, Tuesday. This is considered a “safe harbor” deadline for which election controversies to be concluded.

The Supreme Court Justice moved the deadline

This decision “would give the court a few hours” to decide on any action pertaining to the petition. The Pennsylvania republicans filed an emergency injunction to invalidate the election results and basically toss out 2.5 million mail-in ballots based on the illegal enactment of Act 77 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. 

Act 77 gives permission to vote by mail-in ballot “without an excuse,” which goes against the constitution of Pennsylvania. It enables the state to accept and process massive mail-in ballots. This has always been a source for controversy, as the ballots can be easily manipulated, lost, or misplaced. 

If done on Dec. 9, as initially planned, it could have no effect in the appointing of electors on Dec. 14. Dec. 8 was thus considered a “safe harbor” deadline.

Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough had sought an injunction into certifying the election because of the petition, but it was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court argued that the petition was filed too late, since a year had already passed after Act 77 was signed into law. Justice Alito has now allowed the state to hear the petition.

The Republican lawsuit argued that the Act overrode a provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution and required a constitutional amendment, a lengthy process involving “approvals by two consecutive legislatures followed by a successful statewide referendum.”

If Rep. Kelly wins the lawsuit, then President Trump will take the lead in the Keystone state. Alan Dershowitz, told Fox News in November that Trump had a couple of paths to take against the widespread election fraud. The argument that “the court usurped the legislature’s power could be a winning point with the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court petition states: “Beginning with the Military Absentee Ballot Act of 1839, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court consistently rejected all attempts to expand absentee voting by statute — uniformly holding that a constitutional amendment is required to expand absentee voting beyond the categories provided in the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

“Act 77 is the Commonwealth’s latest attempt to override through legislation the protective limitations on absentee voting contained in the Pennsylvania Constitution, as interpreted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over the last 158 years.”

Governor Tom Wolf signed Act 77 into law in 2019. Image: Screenshot/ youtube.

Democratic Governor Tom Wolf, who signed Act 77 into law in 2019, remains confident that the Supreme Court will not grant Republicans the opportunity to dismiss the mail-in ballots as he states there is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for such a claim. The defendants in the lawsuit include Governor Wolf, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

According to the petition: “Respondents have begun the steps necessary to certify the results of the Election, which was undertaken pursuant to an unconstitutional, no-excuse absentee voting scheme. Without intervention by this Court, respondents will complete the process of certifying the results of an election, and potentially cast Electoral College votes for president and vice president, conducted in a manner which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has long rejected as unconstitutional.”

Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to our email list