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
Prosecuting a nobody for taking home top secret documents while letting a politician go unscathed is not rule of law.
Fabricating evidence for a FISA court order is not rule of law.
Persecuting an ally of the President with threats made to family members is not rule of law. Refusing to drop the case even if when the prosecutors dropped it is NOT RULE OF LAW.
I was thinking more of the sailor who sent selfies to his parents taken aboard the submarine he served on, who went to prison.
I am fascinated by your continued default to R vs D. Where have you been? You really need to spend more time on the member feed and reading comments. You’d learn a lot
Thank you for a more specific case. I was in generalities on that one.
As I recall, he got 2 years for that. Probably at hard labor. Hillary should be serving life for what she did.
Maybe. Maybe learning is not the objective. Maybe control of the narrative is the objective.
I’m on board with the rule of law. There apparently is a requirement in Georgia that voters have their signatures checked when ballots are presented. There is also a legal requirement that any changes to election legal requirements originate in the legislature. We have heard that the Republican Secretary of State waived the signature checking requirement in some form of consent agreement involving Stacey Abrams, I don’t know about what issue. The Republican governor is in accord with the SoS. That looks like walking away from rule of law.
And the narrative is : don’t mind me while I pee on your head and tell you it’s raining.
There’s a run off for senators GA! Don’t mind that disputed election you just lived through – it’s time to move on! Squirrel!
edited to add: and how are those in GA going to vote? And who is going to count those votes? Spare me. This is theater.
The link below leads to an editorial from today WSJ that goes through Barr’s statement and many of the claims President Trump and his legal team have made. Seems well argued, logical, and researched to me.
As it’s a product of the elite MSM and not Gateway Pundit or Steve Crowder or Breitbart, I’m guessing many of you won’t see it that way. So by all means — tear it to shreds. I leave you to each other, which appears to be the way you prefer it.
Good night.
Trump’s Fraud Claims Hit a Barr – WSJ
PA legislature expanded mail voting in 2019, i.e. before covid?
This is an interesting case.
It appears that that Act 77 is unconstitutional according to PA state constitution.
Can the Supreme Court rule a state law unconstitutional for violating the state’s constitution?
OMG! The WSJ!
Yes, the WSJ isn’t Establishment AT ALL!
I think they can when it relates to elections, especially on the federal level. And if it actually violates the US Constitution regarding how state legislatures are entrusted with elections.
I apologize for going off topic but this is still related to PA
Have signatures been verified? PA has a mail ballot rejection rate = 0.03% which is empirically impossible
What about the ballots that arrived after Election Day? Alito said those ballots need to be separated because they may have to be thrown out
There seems to be a great many people who know a lot about politics without the ability to be politic.
There you go. :-)
Annefy,
As long as a source of data is not Gateway Pundit, Steven Crowder, or Breitbart, it is perfectly legit. This is a well-known rule in epistemology. There is no need to check to see if the data was cherry-picked to coincide with a particular narrative. Say the data avoided huge “ballot dumps” that happened in a very short spike and had no reasonable non-fraud explanation. Say less than 5% Trump votes.
Besides Yeti is tired so he leaves the general membership of Ricochet to “each other” and retires. I wouldn’t want him to strain himself and be forced to defend a WSJ article that wasn’t so objective. After all, “that’s the way you (ricochet members) prefer it.” Hopefully, he gets plenty of rest so he can come back tomorrow and take another cheap shot.
Regards,
Jim
My understanding of the consent agreement (illegal by the way) is that signature verifications for mail ballots would be enforced less strictly than what GA law says.
Of course it does, because you and the WSJ want to play the role of the Washington Generals against the Globetrotters.
The WSJ Editorial Board run by Paul Gigot and Kim Strassel have been fair to Trump since he became President.
They don’t always agree with him but they judge Trump on policy not personality/Twitter.
WSJ reporters are a different story.
This is why Ricochet exists?
We are all amateur pundits?
I think we have been too harsh on @blueyeti.
Some of the criticism has been fair and self-inflicted.
I myself have had disagreements with him especially Wisconsin.
He does a lot of work for Ricochet and Hoover, probably more so this year because of the covid stupidity
EJ: You have a podcast?
How about a newsletter?
I disagree. His posts have been uniformly abrasive and condescending
He could have chosen to disagree politely, but he chose not to.
Right now I have two of them.
On Ricochet super feed?
Yes, sir. I produce London Calling and The Roth Effect.
Yeah, well… I never hid that problem.
It’s funny because I don’t even get my news from those sources.