Wanna know how to piss off a judge?

PA Judge blocks certification

Rush a process to prevent her from ruling on the issue.

What are they afraid of?

24 thoughts on “Wanna know how to piss off a judge?

    1. In this case, it may be the PA Constitution.

      The expansion of mail in voting may have been a violation of the PA constitution. That is the issue the judge must rule on.

      I don’t know if the claim is valid or not, nor do I know how to fix it if it is valid.


      1. The claim is a joke. And was brought two elections too late and to the wrong court.


        The ruling is what happens when a partisan judge is afraid of her voters.

        You do not need to be a legal scholar to understand this plain language in the PA Constitution . . .

        Ҥ 4. Method of elections; secrecy in voting.
        All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.”

        In this case the legislature has prescribed the “such other method” of a mail-in ballot.


        Liked by 1 person

        1. Then why the rush to certify results weeks sooner than planned other than to prevent the judge from seeing the evidence?

          If Democrats aren’t guilty, they should stop acting like it.


          1. Lame.

            You eagerly posted this bit of nonsense without bothering to do ANY checking – better for you to assume there might be a problem than to do a little research and know that there isn’t – and now you want to pretend that the Democrats have something to hide because they moved expeditiously to wrap this up. MANY states have already certified their results which – without a jackass attacking the election workers of all parties – would be a non-newsworthy event in any case.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. OK, the family has gone home and I had time to read the link. I think you missed section 14, which specifies the reasons for which absentee voting may be allowed. There is no provision for the legislature or executive branch to add to those reasons and no provision for allowing people not forced to be absent from their district to vote other than in person other than by constitutional amendment.


          3. I did not miss it. I read it and understood it. The voters in question are NOT absentees. There is nothing in section 14 that negates what is in section 4 which gives the legislature very broad authority to define the methods for voting – – “or by such other method as may be prescribed by law.”

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I don’t see any other exception to Section 2 other than section 14, and that does not fall under section 4.

            There is nothing permitting the legislature to allow voting on other than election day except for the absentee provisions of section 14.

            I guess the judge will have to decide, but I do not see any way to allow mail in voting in PA without an amendment changing section 2.

            Unless of course Act 77 was passed by more than 2/3rds of both houses of the legislature.


          5. Section 2? Good grief. All that does is say when election day is. Why not just admit that the claim that voting by mail violates the Constitution is baloney. The legislature is give authority to organize the election by any means they choose. And that is explicit.

            The whole exercise is political bullshit and that could not be more obvious. Are Trump’s lawyers not able to read? The law they are challenging explicitly calls for suits to go straight to the state Supreme Court but they took it to a lower court with an elected Republican judge who – under the law – had no authority to take the case or to rule on it, but she did anyway.


          6. Section 2 establishes the day voting is to take place across the State. Section 14 establishes the sole exception to voting on that date, that being absentee voting.

            Section 4 allows the legislature to establish the means of voting. It says nothing about changing the date.

            You may think you have a better idea, the legislature certainly does. But the PA constitution makes no provision for better ideas.


          7. As usual on everything Trump, your logic is backwards. Section 14 requires that the legislature accommodate absentees and it defines who they are. It does not prohibit ANYTHING.

            Your claim now is that allowing voting by mail unconstitutionally changes election day. Uh, no. Election day remains what it is. The Legislature has chosen to collect votes by in-person voting on election day or by votes received by being posted in the mail as of election day. The power to make such an arrangement is explicitly covered in Section 4 where – again – “All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law.” The ONLY limitation on that “such other method” is that the secrecy of the votes be maintained.

            This whole argument illustrates how pitiful the GOP has become. It wants to throw out the results from one of our biggest states over this obvious baloney with zero evidence of anyone “stealing” a single vote. Here is some news for you – the emperor is not wearing any clothes. You don’t have to believe his porkies.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. Your link is headlined “federal judge”, but the ruling to stop certifying until a hearing on Friday is by a commonwealth judge for PA.

    What’s up?


    1. Indeed there is an error in the heading of the article, but I correctly labeled it a PA judge.

      I suspect the heading was written by an editor as the underlying article correctly states it was a PA judge.

      In any case, the heading error does not change the merit of the story.

      I am not familiar with the PA constitution, but if the legislature passed a law that violates the State Constitution, that law (ACT 77) is invalid. So, what to do about it? See Remedies above.


      1. I can’t find the link right now. But apparently the legislature and the governor passed a bill allowing expanded mail in ballots in the early fall, before the election.

        The suit says they can’t, but the same article in the state constitution also stipulates the General Assembly can do so.

        I think what it will come down to is a reluctance to disenfranchise millions of voters on a technicality that the voters had no idea might be an issue and they voted in good faith as instructed.

        We’ll see.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. If outcome trumps law, then you are right, but if the law is the law, then maybe not.

          The allegation is that the State Constitution DOES NOT allow such a change absent an amendment. I do not know if that is the case. That’s what the judge is to decide.

          If, indeed, people cast votes in good faith are disenfranchised, that is not the fault of the plaintiff or the judge, but of the legislators who presumably violated their state constitution.


      2. You do realize that the PA legislature is actually GOP-led and it was they who passed the rules? Now they want to go back and challenge the rules they themselves made.



        1. Regardless of who passed Act 77, it appears to violate the PA Constitution, and pretending otherwise is not how the Rule of Law works.

          The question is what to do about it. The election cannot be certified but the legislature then faces the choice of echoing the vote or opposing it.

          I don’t advocate negating votes cast in good faith, but the act opened the door to fraudulent voting and to coerced voting, and that must be adjusted for.


          1. Your mind is closed to plain English and simple logic. As in this simple language . . .

            “All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law.”

            Early voting and mail-in voting does NOT violate the PA Constitution. Pretending that it does is a direct assault on the Rule of Law.


          2. And section 2 says voting will be on a fixed date, Section 14 allows an exception for absentee ballots issued for cause.

            A constitution spells out what a government is empowered to do, not just limits to that power.


          3. As usual you are not reporting what is written accurately. Section 2 does NOT say that “voting will be on a fixed date.” It says when the elections will be held. That is NOT the same thing. According to you, not only are mail-in ballots “unconstitutional” but so are arrangements for early voting.

            What is even more absurd is that you wrap this nonsense in a cloak of the “Rule of Law” in support of the law-breakingest President in our history who demonstrates his disrespect for the “Rule of Law” yet again with these dozens of spurious lawsuits.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s