| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| President Trump's Pennsylvania complaint is brilliant |
| 2020-11-14 |
| [American Thinker] The complaint filed in Pennsylvania by the Trump campaign is a superb piece of legal craftsmanship. It was filed in federal court, not state. The gist is that some of the state's actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements. The point is obvious enough once one thinks of it, but it's brilliant all the same. It shifts the focus from state law, where a politicized Pennsylvania court has the last word, to federal law, where the U.S. Supreme Court rules. As for the obviousness of the point, consider as a thought experiment a state law requiring that all votes be counted in secret by an unelected board named by the party in power. Could it survive a constitutional challenge? As my old Harvard constitutional law professors would have said, "to ask the question is to answer it." It is hard to count all the constitutional guarantees violated here: Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities. Indeed, the complaint stacks up the Supreme Court precedents supporting its arguments, including the long line of ringing statements in the chain of one-person-one-vote decisions. Even the late Justice Ginsburg, who never met a progressive argument she could not support, would have trouble upholding such a law. Given this framework, the historic decision in Bush v. Gore becomes useful but unimportant. The problem there was that the Florida Supreme Court pretended to be interpreting state law, and the legal convention is that the U.S. Supreme Court must defer on state issues, even though the Florida court was making up new law as it went along and changing its mind shamelessly. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was muddled by the need to wiggle around this problem without addressing it head-on, because it would not do to cast doubt on the integrity of fellow judges. (The union is strong.) Only a three-justice concurrence said flatly that the Florida Court was contradicting the Legislature, and that would not do. Four justices went off on an opaque Equal Protection argument. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #3 Simple solution many applied to check the honesty of the vote count and to see if their votes were even counted or "lost in the mail".... WRITE IN your own NAME anywhere ever a Democrat was running Unopposed for an elected office that did not require certain certifications. If the Write-In name does not show up on the official count, then pose official bigger question in writing. WHY NOT? |
| Posted by: Just Saying 2020-11-14 08:24 |
| #2 /\[Rooters] withdrawing from at least one of the cases contesting ballots in the battleground state |
| Posted by: Bobby 2020-11-14 06:54 |
| #1 Law firm Porter Wright withdraws from Trump campaign lawsuit in Pennsylvania |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-11-14 05:01 |