PA Supreme Court unanimously dismisses challenge to mail-in voting, Levin says “Stalinism lives”

3

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court politburo trashed the Sean Parnell-Mike Kelly case, ignoring the legalities. They dismissed the challenge to mail-in voting. They are seizing power from the legislature unconstitutionally, according to Mark Levin. The Trump Campaign attorney called it a “ridiculous political game.”

Pennsylvania state court Judge McCullough had issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to electors’ appointment and transmission of the necessary paperwork to the Electoral College pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upheld an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight, Legal Insurrection reports.

Judge McCullough said the case would likely prevail as the changes in mail-in voting procedures violated election law and were unconstitutional.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagrees:

No solace for Trump/petitioners in the separate opinion by Chief Justice. Although dissenting in part, Chief Justice Saylor, joined by Justice Mundy, agree there was no basis for the preliminary injunction and no basis for a court to entertain wholesale disenfranchisement.

They wanted to make sure this doesn’t go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can find opinions on these links:

REACTIONS

Mark Levin is flipping mad. He wrote on Twitter, “The rogue PA Supreme Court is the most detestable court in the land. The Democrat majority doesn’t even pretend to sit as justices.” He called them “political hacks” and said, “Rather than uphold the federal and state constitutions, it has shredded them. Stalinism lives.”

The state decides how they run their elections, no matter how corrupt. They don’t want to invalidate any votes, even the corrupt ones.

Ed Morrissey sees this as the end of the end-run around the Pennsylvania election.  The alleged problem is the plaintiffs didn’t act promptly — they waited too long to file.

Justice Wecht points out that the plaintiffs participated in the system before the general election without complaint.

The Trump Campaign attorney said it is “ridiculous.”

She wrote on Twitter, “This has become a ridiculous political game. If Kelly had challenged the statute BEFORE the election, the court would have thrown out the suit, saying there was no injury, in fact. This is a fight for the very integrity of our entire system. Article II!!”

PowerInbox

3 COMMENTS

  1. The Penn SC is no different that and Florida SC in 2000 – leftist. The ruling is not important, and probably angers the US SC more. On the merits, Trump wins. The US SC must rule on the merits, not allow any deflections by Roberts.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.