U.S. Supreme Court rejects Republican challenge to Biden's Pennsylvania win

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Republican challenge to Biden's Pennsylvania win

By Lawrence Hurley

 

U.S. President-elect Joe Biden announces nominees and appointees to serve on his health and coronavirus response teams during a news conference at his transition headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S., December 8, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a defeat to Republicans seeking to throw out up to 2.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania as they try to undo President Donald Trump's election loss, with the justices refusing to block the state from formalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory there.

 

The court in a brief order rejected a request by U.S. congressman Mike Kelly, a Trump ally, and other Pennsylvania Republicans who filed a lawsuit after the Nov. 3 election arguing that the state's 2019 expansion of mail-in voting was illegal under state law.

 

Pennsylvania was one of the pivotal states in the election, with Biden, a Democrat, defeating Trump after the Republican president won the state in 2016. State officials had already certified the election results.

 

There were no noted dissents from any of the justices on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees. Trump had urged the Republican-led Senate to confirm his most recent nominee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, before Election Day so she could participate in any election-related cases.

 

Trump has falsely claimed that he won re-election, making unfounded claims about widespread voting fraud in states including Pennsylvania. Democrats and other critics have accused Trump of aiming to reduce public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and undermine democracy by trying to subvert the will of the voters.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block Pennsylvania from formalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state, dealing another blow to President Donald Trump's effort to undo his election loss, as the two lawyers leading his legal challenges to the election results test positive for COVID-19. This report produced by Chris Dignam.

 

"This election is over. We must continue to stop this circus of 'lawsuits' and move forward," Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, wrote on Twitter.

 

The Supreme Court also must decide what to do with another election-related case brought on Tuesday. Republican-governed Texas, hoping to help Trump, mounted an unusual effort to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania and three other states - Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin - by filing a lawsuit against them directly at the Supreme Court.

 

The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state's constitution.

 

Biden won Pennsylvania by 80,000 votes and received a much higher proportion of the mail-in votes than Trump. Many more people voted by mail this year because of health concerns prompted by the coronavirus pandemic as they sought to avoid crowds at polling places.

 

Ahead of the election, Trump urged his supporters not to vote by mail, making groundless claims that mail-in voting - a longstanding feature of American elections - was rife with fraud.

 

'JUDICIAL POWER'

Pennsylvania said in a court filing that the Republican challengers were asking the justices to "undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power" in U.S. history by nullifying a state's certification of its election results.

 

The state said most of what the challengers had sought was moot because the election results already were certified and what they were really wanted was for "the court overturn the results of the election."

 

Pennsylvania's top court on Nov. 28 dismissed the challenge, saying that the lawsuit was not filed in a timely manner when the mail-in voting law was first enacted. It threw out a lower court ruling that had ordered the state not to certify the election pending a hearing.

 

Trump's campaign and his allies have lost in a stream of lawsuits in key states won by Biden, also including Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others. Judges have rejected sweeping assertions of voting irregularities.

 

Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - exceeding the necessary 270 - compared to 232 for Trump in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election's outcome, while also winning the national popular vote by more than 7 million votes.

 

Tuesday represents a "safe harbor" deadline set by an 1887 U.S. law for states to certify presidential election results. Meeting the deadline is not mandatory but provides assurance that a state's results will not be second-guessed by Congress.

 

After this deadline, Trump could still pursue lawsuits seeking to overturn Biden's victory but the effort would become even more difficult.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-09

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[J Town]

1 minute ago, webfact said:

There were no noted dissents from any of the justices on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees.

Perhaps there IS hope for this SCOTUS.

[GroveHillWanderer]

Quelle surprise! (Not).

Edited December 9, 2020 by GroveHillWanderer

[onthedarkside]

A trolling post has been removed.

 

[Sujo]

9-0

A one sentence denial.

 

Did someone say this could be a monumental decision?

[J Town]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

9-0

A one sentence denial.

 

Did someone say this could be a monumental decision?

I seem to recall having heard that somewhere . . .

[Tug]

They follow and rule on the law not enuendo or party affiliations good they are supposed to be independent 9 to 0 spanked!

[numbr1]

The Supreme court didnt reject the PA case, they rejected the injunction relief because that's not usually the first thing you ask, its a last resort legal move. At this point, the SC may join the Texas case with the PA case, or they take them as separate, thats up to the SC to decide what they want to do with the two cases.

PA lawsuit was not refused to be heard by SCOTUS, only the "emergency injunctive relief" part was denied. The case is still on the docket. So all of this about the case denied is fake news.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, numbr1 said:

The Supreme court didnt reject the PA case, they rejected the injunction relief because that's not usually the first thing you ask, its a last resort legal move. At this point, the SC may join the Texas case with the PA case, or they take them as separate, thats up to the SC to decide what they want to do with the two cases.

PA lawsuit was not refused to be heard by SCOTUS, only the "emergency injunctive relief" part was denied. The case is still on the docket. So all of this about the case denied is fake news.

Still a lot left to the democratic process! Resolving issues between  conflicting  forces in the courts is part of that process it is the bedrock  foundation from which  the republic was  built!

I and many other Americans have a desire to see this play out to the end, despite what some foreigners say is a embarrassment !

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by riclag
txt

[candide]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Still a lot left to the democratic process! Resolving issues between  conflicting  forces in the courts is part of that process it is the bedrock  foundation from which  the republic was  built!

I and many other Americans have a desire to see this play out to the end, despite what some foreigners say is a embarrassment !

 

Do you mean that you will accept court's decisions, in the likely case Trump's legal campaign fails, and acknowledge that there was no evidence of fraud? I doubt it.

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Do you mean that you will accept court's decisions, in the likely case Trump's legal campaign fails, and acknowledge that there was no evidence of fraud? I doubt it.

Remember Maxwell Smart?

 

"Wouldja believe the evidence got swallowed by the dog and we have to wait until it gets pooped out?"

[onthedarkside]

A derogatory name calling post has been removed.  When posting, use people's real names, not made-up derogatory references instead.

 

[Surelynot]

I find it quite amusing when a court, packed with Donald J Trump's supporters, is informed of yet another failed law suit.

[Baerboxer]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

Do you mean that you will accept court's decisions, in the likely case Trump's legal campaign fails, and acknowledge that there was no evidence of fraud? I doubt it.

 

Everyone should accept the courts decisions. It's fundamental to the rule of law and a key part of democracy is an independent, impartial, non politicized judiciary and legal process.

 

It seems, despite all the billowing and bellowing, none of Trumps supporters and minions have been able to find one shred of hard, undisputable evidence, despite the plethora of social media posts claiming otherwise.

 

Trump has to learn that he ain't a bullying business tycoon when President. And things aren't reality just because he says so. It must be worrying, either way, that he's either believing his own version of reality or is one of the biggest con men ever.

 

History ain't gonna treat him kindly!

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Still a lot left to the democratic process! Resolving issues between  conflicting  forces in the courts is part of that process it is the bedrock  foundation from which  the republic was  built!

I and many other Americans have a desire to see this play out to the end, despite what some foreigners say is a embarrassment !

 

I have to confess I too have a desire to see this play out. But in my case the disgraceful motivating emotion is schadenfreude. I never thought I would enjoy the sport of shooting fish in a barrel. But after viewing this spectacle, I'm ashamed to say I may change my mind. From my point of view the score is currently 49 to 1 in the courts. I guess for you it 1 to 49. To change the metaphor, that would be like a batting average of 40 for your side. The elite legal strike force keeps on striking out.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I have to confess I too have a desire to see this play out. But in my case the disgraceful motivating emotion is schadenfreude. I never thought I would enjoy the sport of shooting fish in a barrel. But after viewing this spectacle, I'm ashamed to say I may change my mind. From my point of view the score is currently 49 to 1 in the courts. I guess for you it 1 to 49. To change the metaphor, that would be like a batting average of 40 for your side. The elite legal strike force keeps on striking out.

I believe its 51-1

But when its so bad its normal to miss a couple. 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I believe its 51-1

But when its so bad its normal to miss a couple. 

I should be checking the news every 15 minutes, I guess.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Still a lot left to the democratic process! Resolving issues between  conflicting  forces in the courts is part of that process it is the bedrock  foundation from which  the republic was  built!

I and many other Americans have a desire to see this play out to the end, despite what some foreigners say is a embarrassment !

 

Play out to the end?  In view of the constant filing of frivolous court cases that are quickly thrown out, it seems that some people are trying to have this play out endlessly.  Could the need to keep suckers contributing to a political action committee with few constraints on how the money is used have anything to do with it?  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/us/politics/trump-campaign-donations.html

 

Trump lost.  Accept it.  The margins in the electoral college and the popular vote, combined with the inability of those who want to overturn a legitimate election to come up with credible proof of fraud makes it clear that Trump lost. 

 

The only way to keep Trump in office is to abandon democratic government.  Is your loyalty to Trump such that you will do that?

[oompie69]

The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state's constitution. This from the article.  

When the Republicans changed the state constitution to allow this they had good reasons I suppose for doing so. One of which was probably that they hoped it would benefit them. Because it backfired on them, it's wrong? 

 

 

[candide]

5 minutes ago, oompie69 said:

The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state's constitution. This from the article.  

When the Republicans changed the state constitution to allow this they had good reasons I suppose for doing so. One of which was probably that they hoped it would benefit them. Because it backfired on them, it's wrong? 

 

 

On top of it, they did the same in Texas!

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, oompie69 said:

The Republican plaintiffs argued that the universal, "no-excuse" mail-in ballot program passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature in 2019, enabling voters to cast ballots by mail for any reason, violated the state's constitution. This from the article.  

When the Republicans changed the state constitution to allow this they had good reasons I suppose for doing so. One of which was probably that they hoped it would benefit them. Because it backfired on them, it's wrong? 

 

 

They didn't change the state constitution. Just the law. But what's funny is that right wing supporters of Trump have been propounding the legal theory that the state legislatures aren't bound by state constitutions but only by the Federal Constitution.

Another thing that made this lawsuit hopeless is the delay in filing it. If the plaintiffs really believed that this law was unconstitutional what prevented them from filing it a year ago? The courts really don't like it when a lawsuit is motivated by "gotcha!"

[KhaoYai]

????????????

 

So, a couple of months before the election, when the polls are not looking so good, you 'prime' the country by telling them that the only way you can lose is if the vote is rigged. You then get an opportunity to install yet another Republican judge in the Supreme Court - tipping the balance in your favour (or so you think) should you want to take the election result to court but the court rules against you.

 

Life's so unfair Donald. ????

[Caldera]

This is great news. I hope they will throw out all the other frivolous cases in the same swift and decisive manner.

 

The Texas lawsuit is particularly ridiculous, even by the sore loser's standards.

 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, numbr1 said:

The Supreme court didnt reject the PA case, they rejected the injunction relief because that's not usually the first thing you ask, its a last resort legal move. At this point, the SC may join the Texas case with the PA case, or they take them as separate, thats up to the SC to decide what they want to do with the two cases.

PA lawsuit was not refused to be heard by SCOTUS, only the "emergency injunctive relief" part was denied. The case is still on the docket. So all of this about the case denied is fake news.

Give it up. In this interview, even the lawyer who headed the case says its extremely unlikely that it means anything but that the issue is dead for this election.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/deflated-lou-dobbs-assails-very-cowardly-scotus-says-courage-lacking?jwsource=cl

 

[joecoolfrog]

The circus staggers on , clowns reportedly looking for new employment !

[herfiehandbag]

16 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

The circus staggers on , clowns reportedly looking for new employment !

They're on foot now - the wheels have fallen off the clown car!

[placeholder]

ANOTHER SHOCKER!!!

Nevada Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign’s appeal to overturn Biden’s win

The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday night to reject an appeal from President Trump’s campaign to overturn the state’s election results, the latest loss in the president’s ongoing legal efforts to have states he did not win declare him victorious.

 

The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state that President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.

Nevada Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign’s appeal to overturn election results - The Washington Post

[Sujo]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

ANOTHER SHOCKER!!!

Nevada Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign’s appeal to overturn Biden’s win

The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday night to reject an appeal from President Trump’s campaign to overturn the state’s election results, the latest loss in the president’s ongoing legal efforts to have states he did not win declare him victorious.

 

The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state that President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.

Nevada Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign’s appeal to overturn election results - The Washington Post

Oh come on, havent they heard of the all the evidence from newsmax an oann. Surely they have it.

[Tie Dye Samurai]

8 hours ago, riclag said:

Still a lot left to the democratic process! Resolving issues between  conflicting  forces in the courts is part of that process it is the bedrock  foundation from which  the republic was  built!

I and many other Americans have a desire to see this play out to the end, despite what some foreigners say is a embarrassment !

 

"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied,"

 

I'll give Ric credit...he used more words in his post than SCOTUS did in their rejection into the10th row of MAGA today.

[candide]

7 hours ago, candide said:

Do you mean that you will accept court's decisions, in the likely case Trump's legal campaign fails, and acknowledge that there was no evidence of fraud? I doubt it.

Crickets....