The writer makes an observation that isn’t much discussed in other venues:
- That a number of states (including the key battlegrounds) expanded absentee voting in ways that violated their own state constitutions.
- That, given the chance, SCOTUS will so rule, invalidating many mail-in ballots that have been counted.
California is a prime example. There, the governor modified the absentee ballot process by executive order on the assumption that the Covid-19 emergency gave him the authority to do so. A California state judge has ruled the executive order “an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power” and SCOTUS would likely concur under the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.
Under this line of reasoning, the means and methods of election fraud become almost a subordinate issue, except that mail-in votes became an opportunity for ballot stuffing. When you grasp that unconstitutional means were used to prepare for the fraud, the magnitude of the crime just grows.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
You lost. Bigly. Get over it.
For example, this “hair-on-fire” piece that you have dug up from the dark web is already obsolete. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled 7-0 to dismiss this claim that the bi-partisan legislation that set up early and mail-in voting is unconstitutional. They did so “with prejudice.”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/28/politics/pennsylvania-state-supreme-court-election-case/index.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your cite mixes 2 entirely different cases.
In the PA Supreme Court case, the court found that the case had been filed too late, more than 180 days after the bill was passed, not that it was without merit.
The GOP candidate who filed the suit pointed out that at the time Act 77 was passed, he was not a candidate, and thus did not have standing to file at that time. In fact, there was no election pending at the time, so no one had standing at that time.
In effect, the PA Supreme Court has ruled that a blatantly unconstitutional bill was never subject to challenge.
I look forward to Alito’s sarcastic wit.
LikeLike
“Your cite mixes 2 entirely different cases.”
It reports on two separate cases. That is hardly the same as mixing them.
The PA bill in question is NOT blatantly unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional at all. Article VII, Section 4 of the PA Constitution gives the Legislature full authority in setting up election mechanisms.
“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.”
As for “Alito’s sarcastic wit”, don’t hold your breath. SCOTUS will not involve itself on behalf of Trump over such phony issues. Trump and his supporters may think that his appointees “owe” him, but they are very, very unlikely to further degrade our Constitution by helping him steal the election from the winner of the popular and electoral vote. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only judge who has ruled on the merits of the issue agrees Act 77 is unconstitutional. The PA Supreme court ruling was based on the problematic issue of timing and standing.
Violation of the State’s constitution is not a phony issue.
LikeLike
RE: “The PA Supreme court ruling was based on the problematic issue of timing and standing.”
Timing and standing may not apply. A law that violates the state constitution is inherently invalid forever. Alito will have some great jokes to tell on that basis alone, should he get the chance.
LikeLike
RE: “The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has ruled 7-0 to dismiss this claim that the bi-partisan legislation that set up early and mail-in voting is unconstitutional.”
So what? That’s not the end of it.
LikeLike
So what? Well, it is pretty significant that the highest court in Pennsylvania threw this case out. That’s what. Trump’s lawyers – whoever they are this week – may talk about going on to SCOTUS but that is not the same as SCOTUS taking the case, much less their ruling in Trump’s favor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Like I said, that’s not the end of it. There’s no good reason to think SCOTUS won’t take the case on appeal. After all, if Act 77 violates the state constitution, then the PA election clearly violated the U.S Constitution.
LikeLike
“There’s no good reason to think SCOTUS won’t take the case on appeal. ”
If they do, they would be violating their duties in doing so. None of the cases have had any credible evidence presented. A GOP legislature passed the laws in question and it is they who are questioning them? Seriously?
The hypocrisy of the arguments in defense of Trump and his sycophantic allies is disgusting on its face. Maybe the word “deplorable” is applicable is some instances.
LikeLiked by 2 people