If Jenna Ellis is looking for activist judges she can look

[SDANation]

no further then Patricia McCullough. She came out with another “opinion” tonight basically saying she was right to issue her stay order for certification due to the question of the constitutionality of Act 77, which was passed over a year before Election Day by a majority republican legislature. Neglecting all that she makes no justification for potentially disenfranchise millions of voters, who voted in good faith, other than signaling, “well tough, it’s unconstitutional.” Its fucking ridiculous we have people like this Trump activist judge in charge of key decisions in our country.

Luckily this will most likely get tossed by the PA Supreme Court, but I couldn’t imagine if the PA Supreme Court wasn’t a dem majority. This shit needs to end. And judges like this should be punished.

[patricia92243]

1. What is Act 77

[SDANation]

2. The act passed with bipartisan support in PA

That basically implements no excuse mail ballots. They had 180 days from the implementation to challenge it.. and just to show how far she is beyond the pail, is this is why judges have been asking Trump attorneys. Across the board in multiple states is, “why am I just hearing this case now?”

[Ms. Toad]

3. The challenge certainly should have been brought before the election -

because disenfranchising a substantial portion of PA's voters because (1) Republicans passed the law authorizing no-excuse absentee voting (2) Republicans watched the implementation of the law and the strong encouragement to vote absentee and (2) Republicans now want to challenge the law they enacted - and watched be implemented - because they don't like the fact that primarily Democrats used it to vote.

That said, legislatures can't immunize statutes from constitutional review by including a deadline for challenging the statute.

[Tom Rivers]

4. Meaning, what, exactly?

Your last line has me confused. Do you think this is something SCOTUS would actually take up and overturn? People voted in good faith in a way that was approved by republicans and democrats alike due to the pandemic and was under no legal challenge at the time they did so. Even the most far right judge (which SCOTUS has many, sadly) would have to jump through Scalia-esque logic holes and then some to justify overturning this with no proof of fraud. Do we just overturn every state that did mail-in voting or just states that Trump is throwing a tantrum about losing? There are no do-overs. They did everything to slow the mail and still lost. If they do this and kick it to state legislatures to decide for us poor pathetic peons I will absolutely support an overthrow of our "Government" without hesitation. I will die before I ever live in a fascist country.

[Ms. Toad]

5. The constitutional issue is a state issue -

So not likely SCOTUS will hear it.

As to the state courts - The PA courts have been pretty firm about counting the votes of everyone who cast a ballot in good faith, according to the rules set out by the state, and rejecting disenfranchising voters unless the law expresly provided disenfranchisement as a remedy. (And since the very party now challenging - likely some elected under it - created the law and promoted it - and are only challenging it now because the outcome is not to their liking - this is likely to be an even stronger reason for not disenfranchising voters.) So I expect that if the court takes up the question of constitutionality of the no-fault absentee voting law it won't impact this election.

My last comment was only to say that the law-making body can't prevent the courts from reviewing a law by imposing restrictions on revew. If it were that simple, every law ever written would include a provision that restricted the court's ability to review it for constitutionality. That way no law would ever get overturned. Sort of like a child sticking a sign on their door that says, "no grownups allowed." It doesn't actually keep the grownups out.

[Tom Rivers]

6. Okay, all is good, we're in agreement on all counts