Saturday, November 28, 2020

Unconstitutionality has a time limit?

Or so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rebuffed a long-shot election challenge Saturday from one of President Trump’s top boosters in Congress, balking at his suggestion that it throw out every ballot cast by mail or designate the state’s legislature to decide who won the state.

In a unanimous decision, the justices declared that U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Butler) and the seven Republican plaintiffs in the suit had waited too long to bring their lawsuit alleging that the 2019 law, passed by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature, which created no-excuse mail voting in the state for the first time was unconstitutional and “illegally implemented.”

Instead of filing it shortly after the passage of the bill, which was required in the statute, they waited until their candidate lost to challenge the mechanism by which some 2.6 million Pennsylvanians voted this year, the court wrote in a terse, three-page order.

I very, very much doubt that this is a surprise to the Trump team. Remember, wait two days.... It's a bit strange, though. If the law flies in the face of the state constitution, then it presumably continues to do so regardless of when it is formally challenged. Does unconstitutionality really have a time limit?



Blogger FUBARwest November 28, 2020 8:05 PM  

Everytime something like this happens it makes me wonder if the people making these decisions can think ahead, even a little, to see the potential consequences for the precedent they are setting. But then, if they could, they wouldn't be on the left would they.

Blogger Mad Italian November 28, 2020 8:06 PM  

If someone had sued after the law was passed they would have said they didn't have standing since their was no impact yet.

Blogger Silent Draco November 28, 2020 8:11 PM  

Dem and RINO desperation also has no time limit.

Blogger Stilicho November 28, 2020 8:15 PM  

Statutes which violate the US Constitution are void ab initio. This is also a basic premise of common law. I expect a similar analysis is applied under the PA constituition as well.

Blogger Ingot9455 November 28, 2020 8:18 PM  

This is the Constitutional doctrine of 'finders keepers losers weepers' also known as, 'yoink!' or 'I stole it now it's mine!'

Blogger SemiSpook37 November 28, 2020 8:20 PM  

PA is one of the few places where the citizenry elects their supreme Court justices. And there, it's a 5-2 split for leftists.

The fact that they said there was an "expiration date" is a complete stretch. There's no way that even passes the muster of Act 77 of 2019, where it's explicitly stated the General Assembly has final say in how elections are to be executed in the Commonwealth.

How much you want to bet Wolf signed that thinking, "They don't have the balls to try and back that up."?

Blogger FUBARwest November 28, 2020 8:20 PM  

For charity's sake this decision is overturning the same case talked about in the previous post that judge remarked "would succeed on it's merits" right?

Blogger Yukichi Sensei November 28, 2020 8:23 PM  

The core issue is basic. Laws apply justly, or they dont. If not, we are in a new land of possibility where the state is just a bandit organization.

Be ready.

Blogger Cedric November 28, 2020 8:23 PM  

I am shocked that a set of judges that are voted in through these mechanisms pulled something out of their ass to justify them.

Through the incredibly obvious conflict of interest, I highly doubt the team is surprised.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother November 28, 2020 8:25 PM  

So they were supposed to assume they'd be robbed way back in 2019 and file for future damages?

Blogger SciVo November 28, 2020 8:28 PM  

Who knew that there was a constitute of limitations!

Blogger Jim November 28, 2020 8:28 PM  

If an unconstitutional law infringes upon your ability to petition for redress of grievances, well, you can see why the court has no choice but to throw your petition out.

Blogger Bellomy November 28, 2020 8:30 PM  

Bwahahaha, that is beautiful. "You're correct completely right, it was illegal, but you waited too long. No take backsies."

Zero chance this holds up, it's too stupid.

Blogger Q November 28, 2020 8:31 PM  

And if challenged earlier they wouldn't have standing. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Blogger Jim November 28, 2020 8:32 PM  

Oh, you also have to do it sooner, so that the court has the opportunity to toss it for lack of standing.

Blogger Brandon Marone November 28, 2020 8:33 PM  

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the courts cannot decide on matters pertaining to the state legislature (ie choosing electors) .That authority goes to the legislature and the legislature only .

Blogger Br'er Shaygetz November 28, 2020 8:34 PM  

It's 2020...are you surprised?

Blogger Azimus November 28, 2020 8:35 PM  

Excellent! Lets start applying this standard to the heresy laws...

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction November 28, 2020 8:36 PM  

I expect we will see the headlines "US Supreme Court Over Rules Pennsylvania Supreme Court" in short order.

Blogger basementhomebrewer November 28, 2020 8:38 PM  

SJWs always project, even when they wear black robes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been nakedly partisan in every decision related to this election. Suddenly, they are trying to accuse others of being so.

Blogger D. November 28, 2020 8:38 PM  

"Instead of filing it shortly after the passage of the bill, which was required in the statute, "

from infogalatic:

"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."

Blogger Seeingsights November 28, 2020 8:51 PM  

'Does unconstitutionality really have a time limit?'

No it does not.

The court's opinion is simply a rationalization of their preferred outcome.

Blogger My Shield Is Disgust November 28, 2020 8:52 PM  

Doesn’t matter. The PA legislature is going to throw out those ballots, while the commies on the court sit on their cucumbers.

Blogger Ingot9455 November 28, 2020 8:57 PM  

But more seriously; this is the same Pennsylvania Supreme Court that ruled to give three extra days to accept mail-in ballots; to accept mail-in ballots with no date and other such falseness. There was no question how they would rule in any such case.

Blogger Tom November 28, 2020 9:02 PM  

Rope, tree, democrat judge. Some assembly required.

Blogger dienw November 28, 2020 9:02 PM  

Interesting, we have one Pennsylvania judge's hand takimg away and another's giving:
from ZeroHedge
"In short; Judge McCullough believes that Pennsylvania's last-minute changes to mail-in ballots was likely unconstitutional, and if allowed to remain in place may negatively affect at least one of the plaintiffs (a GOP congressman) in future elections."

Blogger cyrus83 November 28, 2020 9:03 PM  

Considering this is the same Court that accepted a challenge to Congressional district maps more than 5 years after the maps were drawn, the US Supreme Court will probably be reminding them there is no time limit on constitutional violations.

Blogger jarheadljh November 28, 2020 9:04 PM  

I think their logic is implied consent. Nothing was said about the problem going into the election, therefore it was agreed to. I don't expect that to hold up considering that the whole point of the court system is to deal with problems after it has become obvious that they are a genuine problem instead of a hypothetical one, but I'm guessing that's the general idea.

I'm still pretty sure that this will be decided by SCOTUS. Whether it is finalizing the definition of "legal vote" which has become the operative phrase of any Trump campaign official speaking to a camera which of course would drastically affect any recounts, or reaffirming that yes indeed state legislatures do have the power independent of the state governor to send electors with special instructions, or that yes a contingent election is a thing that has happened three times in US history creating ample precedent, whatever path the legal battles take this was always going to be decided by SCOTUS.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 28, 2020 9:11 PM  

If Constitutionality has a time limit what does that say about same-sex marriage, abortion, slavery? All of the precedents happened too long ago, sorry....

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 28, 2020 9:12 PM  

Oh look, more fodder for the executions.

Blogger Nostromo November 28, 2020 9:15 PM  

I got nothing. Is the Chief jurist named Hector Alizondo Mt. Dew Camacho?

Blogger Reader November 28, 2020 9:16 PM  

The Pennsylvania Supreme Commie Scum need to face a firing squad.

Blogger John Regan November 28, 2020 9:17 PM  

Here's the deal. The "Commonwealth Court" sided with Trump. The appeal from that apparently lies with the PA Supreme Court. They reverse, but ambiguously. This is the ideal set up for a run at the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS generally will only review a case where there has been disagreement in the lower courts on the way up. That is, the trial court went one way, got reversed, but there were dissents in the reversal. Now it's a "big question" that the SCOTUS has to resolve. I doubt anyone on team Trump is surprised or dismayed by this ruling. This whole thing was always SCOTUS bound.

Blogger John Regan November 28, 2020 9:22 PM  

And btw, it's a good point that there was no way to challenge the rule in court until a candidate lost as a result of it. In the US, courts do not decide questions in the abstract. There has to be a party to the litigation with an actual stake in the controversy. So that's a really stupid thing for the PA Supreme Court to say.

Blogger Teleport me off this rock November 28, 2020 9:38 PM  

Stupid plaintiffs, why didn't they just consult the pre-crime bureau that would allow all "common sense" gun laws create perfect safety? To sue in anticipation of things that have not yet occurred is a perfectly sane and sensible legal doctrine.

Blogger Fozzy Bear November 28, 2020 9:49 PM  

This is already before the Supreme Court. Alito ruled three weeks ago that late mail in ballots in PA had to be segregated and counted separately, in case they needed to be thrown out. Who is the Justice responsible for the circuit covering PA? Alito. Mootness won’t cut it on appeal because it remains a live issue.

Blogger Timmy3 November 28, 2020 9:58 PM  

The PA Supreme Court also unblocked the lower court ruling preventing certification. So back to the same mess or bringing it to the US Supreme Court.

Blogger Unknown November 28, 2020 10:01 PM  


Blogger Unknown November 28, 2020 10:04 PM  

Remember all those “case closed” near-unanimous Florida Supreme Court decisions that were supposed to guarantee Gore eventually carrying the state and thus the Presidency in 2000?

Pepperidge Farms remembers!

Blogger Noah B. November 28, 2020 10:05 PM  

Man, they're desperate.

Blogger Balam November 28, 2020 10:09 PM  

Adding to this I would have enjoyed it if there were legal blowback to maneuvers like the PA court is making. More than simply being rebuked I'd like to have seen them quartered by horses.

Blogger Teleport me off this rock November 28, 2020 10:12 PM  

I don't know about y'all, but I'm start to feel that, regardless what happens with this election, voting has very little future here in the US. Every count will be the subject of endless litigation from here on.

This is not necessarily the worst possible outcome.

Blogger NedFlinders November 28, 2020 10:19 PM  

8. Yukichi SenseiNovember 28, 2020 8:23 PM
The core issue is basic. Laws apply justly, or they dont. If not, we are in a new land of possibility where the state is just a bandit organization.

"New land of possibility".

Sigh. 100 years of infringing on "shall not be infringed" all the way to the Supreme Court and you're only just now cottoning on to the idea that the law is ruled as being whatever it's convenient for the state to rule it as being at the time it's ruled.

This has been blatantly obvious for decades now and if you haven't bothered to take notice until this point then it can only be presumed that you simply didn't care because it wasn't your toes being trodden on.

The elephant in the room has roots growing up its legs and a pile of manure behind it as tall as it's arse. Try to imagine what it sounds like for someone to finally look up from their phone and exclaim the presence of said elephant as being something novel.

Blogger Lady November 28, 2020 10:27 PM  

I am a foreigner. I am trying to understand the legal situation in Pennsylvania. The third circuit ruling, the Judge Patricia McCullough ruling, and the ruling mentioned here are all different? Which takes precedence?

Blogger Dole November 28, 2020 10:29 PM  

They would have saved trouble if they just put in a clause to the law that stated it is constitutional.

Joking aside the suit specifically states it was not thrown out because of the 180 day limit:

"While the Commonwealth also relies upon Section 13(3) of Act 77, providing for a 180-
day period in which constitutional challenges may be commenced, given our reliance
upon the doctrine of laches, we do not speak to this basis for dismissal."

Blogger Parallax November 28, 2020 10:35 PM  

“. . . alleging that the 2019 law, passed by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature,”

Nice try commie. It’s not the law they’re challenging but the SCOPA’s revision of it to accommodate “emergencies”. You know, like a Trump landslide. This is a violation of the Constitution and the same reasoning Alito used.

Blogger A.D. November 28, 2020 10:36 PM  


Blogger JWM in SD November 28, 2020 10:38 PM  

Yeah...that's a problem. I also think they're going to jam up the PA Legislature some how as well. If the courts are not allowing for redress of grievances, then they are pushing a large portion of the public towards more kinetic methods. This isn't good...there are a lot of pissed off people watching this play out. It's not really even about Trump any more.

Blogger Didas Kalos November 28, 2020 11:11 PM  

a little off topic.

why would Eric Schmidt want citizenship in Cyprus?

Blogger Jack Amok November 28, 2020 11:18 PM  

Of course the PA State SC - which is part of The Steal - will try to block this (and of course they will, if they haven't already, overturn McCullough's ruling blocking certification). But that's a given - this is as surprising as Joe Biden claiming he's President-Elect, sniffing some poor girls hair, and then trying to pick a
fist-fight with a no-parking sign.

It won't matter. The PA State Supreme Court is a mostly-irrelevant bit-player in the drama. The USSC will issue the only significant legal rulings, even if those are simply to let something stand.

Courts have became largely irrelevant specifically because the Democrat-ridden ones are such abysmal hacks as to issue ruling like this. They are of no consequence because they simply exist to put a stamp of declining legitimacy on someone else's actions. In a way, they're a lot like DC Comics, or Fox News, or CNN - people only pay attention to them because they used to be relevant, but having squandered that, they're just play-acting now.

I'm sure Trump owns a retired race horse somewhere. He should order it installed as the Chief Justice of the PA Supreme Court.

Blogger GammaCatch November 28, 2020 11:28 PM  

I suspect we are going to live to see something more insane than 9/11. Not an attack, I bet. But some sort of massive cultural bump. There is nowhere you can go, at least in my state, without feeling the tension. Seeing it everywhere. The Masks, the Lockdowns, the corruption in every corner for every normie to see. PA has become this sleeping mass. I'll be shocked if something miraculous does not happen.

I suspect we will see Trump on the air with heavy words when we are getting to that point. He and his team are going to drop some massive curtain and show us something absolutely insane around the time this is settled.

Blogger tublecane November 28, 2020 11:33 PM  

"instead of filing it shortly after the passage of the bill, which was required in the statute"

All of a sudden laws can dictate how themselves are to be challenged?

Surely that means going forward every statute shall be passed with a rider stating: "no-takebacks, double-fingers crossed."

Blogger Jake November 28, 2020 11:33 PM  

As I understand it this is the same court that illegally changed the rules re: mail in ballots and ruled to allow ballots 3 days after the election. No real surprise then that they'd rule to shut down this suit. The surprise is just how little they tried to make it look like a legit, honest, unbiased ruling.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd November 28, 2020 11:36 PM  

FUBARwest wrote:Everytime something like this happens it makes me wonder if the people making these decisions can think ahead, even a little, to see the potential consequences for the precedent they are setting.
It's who-whom every time, so precedents really don't matter.

Blogger Doktor Jeep November 29, 2020 12:04 AM  

My the courts are making some rather talmudic interpretations lately.

Blogger Jack Amok November 29, 2020 12:07 AM  

All of a sudden laws can dictate how themselves are to be challenged?

Surely that means going forward every statute shall be passed with a rider stating: "no-takebacks, double-fingers crossed."

"Any challenge to this law must be filed in a timely manner with a competent, legitimate, court. Note, PA State courts are not competent or legitimate, so you'll have to file somewhere else."

Blogger pyrrhus November 29, 2020 12:12 AM  

The decision was to protect the Court's prior decision to write a new statute to elect Biden...The grounds for the dismissal are asinine, as every 1st year law student knows, because SCOTUS has taken cases where plaintiffs slept on their rights for 20 years or more...As AmJur states, unConstitutional laws are void ab initio...

Blogger Jack Amok November 29, 2020 12:18 AM  

why would Eric Schmidt want citizenship in Cyprus?

Everyone I know (and I know a few) who moved to Cyprus did it to get their Russian money out of Putin's easy reach, but I'm sure Schmidt is just going there for the weather.

(NOTE: the weather in Cyprus sucks. Too damn hot and crappy beaches)

Blogger Dafo November 29, 2020 12:27 AM  

One shortcut I’ve learned through arguments with liberals is to assume what they say is false. Maybe it’s channeling Vox’s “sjws always lie” mantra but applied to the general dem population who may not be lying on purpose but parroting the falsehoods they’ve been fed. It works really well.

I would not be surprised if this court is omitting some obvious details that would have made it impossible to repeal that law sooner.

Blogger pyrrhus November 29, 2020 12:35 AM  

O/T. General McInerney interview--5 special forces +1 paramilitary killed in raid on CIA in Germany, but mission accomplished..

Blogger pyrrhus November 29, 2020 12:36 AM  

Now it's war...

Blogger Imwill November 29, 2020 12:37 AM  

People like you say this shit every time.
When has it gone badly for them? When have they faced one iota of trouble due to their shortsighted law fare?
Your finger wagging is pathetic.

Blogger boogeyman November 29, 2020 12:49 AM  

The law is an ass. Barter Town had a better idea with that whole Thunder-dome thing.

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel November 29, 2020 12:59 AM  

"Unconstitutionality has a time limit?"

No, but our PA Scotus has no limit on its corruption either and it's been this way at least since the late Ralph Cappy helped draw up a budget-busting pay increase in 2005 and then dismissed public anger “knee-jerk”.

You see, if you really want a bill to pass judicial muster and the judiciary will benefit from it, they'll really legislate from the bench.

When Cappy died in 2009, the eulogies all omitted his misconduct.

Now,as a general rule, you can't cut a judge's pay while in office. However, it sure would be a shame if they had fewer clerks to do their grunt work. PA is suffering serious fiscal woes as result of the despot and the tranny's lockdown orders. Sacrifices must be made. Let those who are the most insulated from economic upheaval give up some luxuries.

Blogger Hammer November 29, 2020 1:32 AM  

More fraud discovered, now in Nebraska. This is massive:

Blogger Jack Amok November 29, 2020 1:49 AM  

People like you say this shit every time.
When has it gone badly for them? When have they faced one iota of trouble due to their shortsighted law fare?
Your finger wagging is pathetic.

Linear thinking is even more pathetic.

Blogger Boaty Bear November 29, 2020 2:09 AM  

Something to do with Famagusta being reopened recently for the first time in nearly 50 years?

Just thinking aloud.
Something's afoot In the land of Arabs with shoes!

Mother in law sent pics/vids as she wandered around the ghost town, apparently only place Out Of Bounds is an estate owned by QE2?

Blogger Boaty Bear November 29, 2020 2:11 AM  


Blogger crescent wrench November 29, 2020 3:19 AM  

This case is challenging state law in state courts.

Any lawyers in the room care to detail the arguments that can be used to appeal to the US Supreme court?

Blogger Pierre November 29, 2020 4:12 AM  


Since this server raid happened I've been wondering if they just seized servers, or if they also arrested people. If there was a firefight, there must have been arrests...

Anonymous Anonymous November 29, 2020 4:47 AM  

Isn’t it then a bit strange how it took SCOTUS 200 years to find the right to an abortion in the constitution?

These arseholes are just inventing whatever’s convenient.

This is why you cannot argue with the left: they have no principles.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 29, 2020 8:41 AM  

They better start hoping we don't run out of jury box....

Blogger John Regan November 29, 2020 12:04 PM  

Actually this is all covered by Article II, Section 1 of the federal Constitution. So while state law is also involved, this is ultimately a federal case that will go to the SCOTUS. And it WILL go to the SCOTUS, because the SCOTUS will hear any case where the president is an interested party. Such a case becomes "important" automatically.

Blogger liberranter November 29, 2020 12:45 PM  

@32 Reader:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Commie Scum need to face a firing squad.

Then so do the votards who elected them.

Direct popular election of state Supreme Court justices: even for this country that has to be one of the most zoologically idiotic ideas anyone could possibly come up with and implement. A better argument than any others made for the abolition of universal suffrage.

Blogger RadixMalorum November 29, 2020 2:11 PM  

In the democrats' minds everything that's unconstitutional has a time limit because after all they can just redefine them to be constitutional later when they get power. These people are literally the worst people humanity's ever produced. Luckily their wickedness far exceed their means for now.

Blogger Akulkis November 29, 2020 3:08 PM  

"Everytime something like this happens it makes me wonder if the people making these decisions can think ahead, even a little, to see the potential consequences for the precedent they are setting."

These people are STUPID.
-- Q

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts