Any news about Trump sending PA voting info to Supreme Court.

[patricia92243]

I Googled it, and all I could find is that he sent it yesterday.

[Mike 03]

1. The only articles I see on this topic are 17-20 hours old.

Sorry.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. What does that mean? The Supreme Court doesn't have to do anything

with "PA voting information" unless it's in a petition for a writ of certiorari. I think we'd have heard about it if they'd filed a cert petition, and it would be a public record.

[Mike 03]

3. I don't really understand. They are seeking an emergency injunction.

Maybe you can make heads or tails of it.

WASHINGTON – A long-shot effort to overturn the presidential election results in Pennsylvania made its way to the Supreme Court Tuesday.

Conservative Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and others contend state officials had no right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to expand mail-in voting in 2019, and the state Supreme Court was wrong to uphold that statute. The group called it "an unconstitutional, no-excuse absentee voting scheme."

"Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election," the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was "conducted illegally."

The group seeks an emergency injunction from the nation's highest court to block the completion of any remaining steps in the state's certification of Pennsylvania's 2020 election results, which took place last week. The petition was submitted to Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/12/01/donald-trumps-allies-ask-supreme-court-block-pa-election-result/3785564001/

[patricia92243]

5. I can't believe we are not hearing one word about it on any

of the news programs. I would think this is of very high importance.

[Mike 03]

7. Yes. I'm hoping our DU legal eagles see this and opine.

My only thought is that just because the Trump lawyers submitted something to the SCOTUS doesn't necessarily mean they will take up the issue.

But I really don't know much about the process of getting the SC to act on a submission.

We have some people here who can probably figure out whether or not this is significant, or whether it could possibly be a publicity stunt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. OK, I see what they're trying to do.

A party can apply for an emergency injunction to stop the effect of a lower court pending further proceedings, but I don't see how this can possibly work because PA has already certified the election results.

[Mike 03]

8. Yes, it seems crazy, not to mention late.

Thank you for taking a look at it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Laurence Tribe asserts that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction on this lower STATE court ruling. Nt

[patricia92243]

4. See #3. I should have gone into more detail, but they did it

very nicely.

[hlthe2b]

9. Morons failed to gain a stay from PA Supreme Court so they are frantically trying to rectify

before SCOTUS excludes automatically.

Link to tweet

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction; Trump could send ballots, Xmas cards and a xerox of his butt

Doesn’t mean SCOTUS will look at it.