Early reports about this ruling confused me a lot. This is the best explanation I have come across.
Pennsylvania State Judge Upholds Halt To Certification, Finds Likelihood Mail-In Balloting Procedures Violate PA Constitution
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
See, like Roy Cohn told little Donald Trump, the right judge is the key.
I would guess that the final ruling by this judge will be the same as 36 or so others.
The ruling was yesterday with a scathing review by the judges. And the appeal to the feds or state supreme court will be immediate.
A tactic is to file the same suit in as many courtrooms as possible, making a tweak here and there to make them seem different. This has already be called out by judges at all levels.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was confused myself, but McCullough’s ruling about halting the certification was overruled yesterday in a federal appeals court.
Next stop SCOTUS for the appeal. I doubt they will even take the case since 40 varieties of pure BS offered in different order does not make the cases any more credible.
Meanwhile it seems Trump is really going off the deep end. His tirade, rant and announcement that “I am the president of the United States, don’t talk to me like that” when a reporter asked a simple question.
The quote is not verbatim, but close enough.
PS: I loved the assertion by the federal judge saying, essentially, that voters, not lawyers, pick presidents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “McCullough’s ruling about halting the certification was overruled today in a federal appeals court.”
Are you sure? The appeal should have been to the state Supreme Court. Also, the federal judge’s comment you mention was made in a different case.
LikeLike
I can’t swear that is the case. There are more suits than Men’s Warehouse during the spring sales.
I believe one of them listed counties that were suspect in Michigan with stats, etc. turns out the counties were in Minnesota and the stats were wrong to boot. And it was a suit charging Michigan with fraud.
So it is hard to keep up for the legal team, and harder for us low life peons.
The goal is mistrust and chaos. Seems like it has some effect, intended or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Different case, this is the one we discussed earlier
https://tidewaterforum.blog/2020/11/25/wanna-know-how-to-piss-off-a-judge/#comments
LikeLike
UPDATE 11-28-2020 7 p.m.: Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses challenge to mail-in ballot procedures, vacates halt to certification.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Inevitable, given the absurdity of the legal remedy. I wonder what new crackpot conspiracy will be trotted out when the GA silliness is tossed as well?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the glut of lawyers (underemployed, over educated, bored, professional muckrakers), I wonder if Trump will be filing lawsuits on this election and soliciting donations to fund them until the day he dies?
Scratch that! Of course he will. The answer was in the question, “soliciting donations”, which of will be pocketed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An “awakening” cultist has already sued to get his “donation” back. Maybe THAT can keep Rudy and Powell busy……
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not will; IS! It has been reported that about 75% of all monies being donated to his legal fund is going to his leadership (their words, not mine) PAC to keep the GOP under his thumb for the foreseeable future
LikeLike
“ In the latest Republican lawsuit attempting to thwart president-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the battleground state, the state supreme court unanimously threw out the three-day-old order, saying the underlying lawsuit was filed months after the law allowed for challenges to Pennsylvania’s year-old mail-in voting law.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/29/pennsylvania-supreme-court-throws-out-republican-bid-to-reject-25m-mail-in-votes
Apparently the law stipulates a time period to challenge the mail in ballot law passed over a year ago. I guess trying to retroactively challenge the law was part of the game plan. Either that or it was a blatant attempt to skirt the law hoping no one would notice.
On the bright side, Giuliani and his legal team get more fees and Trump gets more post election donations that he gets to keep. I think that is the main reason for continuing after 38 failures in numerous courts, state and federal, with equally numerous judges, Republican and Democrat.
A grifter “never gives a sucker an even break”…never, ever.
Thank you W. C. Fields.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The lengths to which people will go to hold on to power are truly astounding. I fear for the damage they are dong to those easily led/duped and to our democratic institutions as well.
Although the “system” seems to be surviving the stress test.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ANd those laws were all passed by the GOP led state legislature. THey wrote the laws, so they figure they can change them whenever and however they want.
LikeLike
RE: “Apparently the law stipulates a time period to challenge the mail in ballot law passed over a year ago.”
In that case, an appeal to SCOTUS is the next step. There the question will be whether Act 77 (the PA law which created a new category of mail-in voting) was enacted properly under the state constitution. The time-period-for-challenge question will be moot, since an improperly enacted constitutional amendment remains invalid forever, whether it faces challenge or not.
It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
LikeLike
The problem will likely be the lack of a just remedy.
LikeLike
It could be determined that the outcome you so desperately pray for will end up being that it was unconstitutional (doubtful, but ok) but there is no remedy to overturn the results of the 2020 election in PA and disenfranchise ALL PA voters. It would be the most undemocratic ruling in the history of this country. Yet YOU and Don would cheer it.
LikeLike