Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cruz Backs Supreme Review
Ted Cruz came out last night with a highly cogent argument for the Supreme Court taking up the case in Pennsylvania that would disqualify the mail-in ballots.
“Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.
“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.
“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.
“The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’
“In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called ‘laches,’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now.
“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.
“Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.
“As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”
The initial lawsuit is summarized as follows:
Conservative Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and others contend state officials had no right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to expand mail-in voting in 2019, and the state Supreme Court was wrong to uphold that statute. The group called it “an unconstitutional, no-excuse absentee voting scheme.”
“Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election,” the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was “conducted illegally.”
The group seeks an emergency injunction from the nation’s highest court to block the completion of any remaining steps in the state’s certification of Pennsylvania’s 2020 election results, which took place last week. The petition was submitted to Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
This is not a fraud case – it is about the legality of the changes to voting law. It will be interesting to see what the Supremes do – especially Clarence Thomas, who is very much about states’ rights.
Published in General
I did twice before but was convinced to come back. Cool off a bit. Yeti was kind enough to assure me that I was not suspended for using the term TDS but for “HOW” I used it. The voice of the master is hard to restrain. Lord Acton understood.
One minor correction, ALL government bureaucracies are slow and indecisive. This is not new. Read David Brinkley’s great book, “Washington Goes to War.”
https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Goes-War-David-Brinkley-ebook/dp/B08HLB2ZGL
At another blog I posted another example. The Human Genome Project that was supposed to decipher the human genome. After ten years at it, Craig Venter started a private company and did it in two years. He did not get credit (As Trump will not get credit for the vaccines) because, in Venter’s case, his company did the sequencing of Clinton’s DNA on Lewinski’s dress. No Nobel Prize was ever awarded and Venter and the Genome Project “shared” the credit.
@blueyeti
I appreciate the work you do here. I have read the comments of those who say that they plan on cancelling their membership because they think Ricochet is too restrictive or too anti-Trump. That’s amazing because at least in the comments section I have sensed that criticisms of Trump could rarely get a fair hearing.
My sense is that there are lots of people who don’t want to stick their neck out and criticize Trump because they don’t want to get hit with all of the accusations of being a RINO.
In any case, keep up the good work. Ricochet has a lot of great content.
I have watched as the NeverTrumpers gradually drifted away or were converted by his successes. Only a few Diehards left.