No SCOTUS involvement?
Thought it was all over in Pennsylvania, didn’t you?
Well it seems this is not the case.
“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito late Thursday set a deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a request to throw out the state’s mail-in voting results — or possibly the entire election.”
Many are quick to say that it is too late, the election has been certified and the date set by Alito – December 9 – is a day after the “safe Harbour” deadline. However, those that are thinking that it’s all over due to the Safe Harbour provision, might want to read the Constitution which states Clear Harbour can only be given if there are no disputes that are left unresolved.
With more evidence being heard at the Senator Hearings, particularly with the recent Georgia Video of improper counting. We might find that pressure is growing for judges (including SCOTUS Judges) not to be so dismissive of each of the cases still to be heard.
The ruling on the case of unconstitutional mail voting, which everyone thought was outright dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, had two judges saying there was merit to the claims and that mail in voting was unconstitutional. This in turn sets the scene forthe involvement of the Supreme Court of the United States.
More fuel to the fire
A whistle-blower has come forward saying that he drove a truck full of pellets of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania
The truck driver, who is a subcontractor to The United states Postal Service, claims he drove over 300,000 completed absentee ballots from Bethpage NY to Harrisburg PA. This has raised even more questions on what was going on in a state that has a long history of voter fraud.
Republicans want to know who received these pellets of ballots as there seems to be no logical explanation for 300,000 completed ballots making this journey.
Republicans have asked SCOTUS to intervene in Pennsylvania certification of the election due to the vote by mail being unconstitutional because it required constitutional amendment to authorize the provision. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this was not the case, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the states lawyers to respond by December 9.
The reality is waiting until December 9 to respond could guarantee that Safe Harbour would not be granted.
A lower court Judge in Pennsylvania has already stated that the case of vote by mail in Pennsylvania being unconstitutional would likely win on its merits. So, what are the lawyers going to say?
Legal Expert pours cold water on this possibility
A law professor has stated that now the electors are certified nothing can be done by SCOTUS to change the Safe harbour status by December 8. This seems to mean that Alito setting the date on December 9 makes the whole thing futile. However, this is the quote from the Congress website about Safe Harbour
December 8, 2020: The “Safe Harbor” Deadline
The U.S. Code(3 U.S.C. §5)provides that if election results are contested in any state, and if the state, prior to election day, has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if these procedures have been applied, and the results have been determined six days before the electors’ meetings, then these results are considered to be conclusive, and will apply in the counting of the electoral votes. This date, known as the “Safe Harbor” deadline, falls on December 8 in 2020. The governor of any state where there was a contest, and in which the contest was decided according to established state procedures, is required (3 U.S.C. §6) to send a certificate describing the form and manner by which the determination was made to the Archivist as soon as practicable.
It will be interesting to see what happens here.