unmade bed said:

---

It was hosted on the Dominion Server in Germany.

---

Ah so it never existed in the first place.

Sasappis said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

So what happens if the Republican Party of PA wins this case? The late received ballots are thrown out?

---

Correct. The commonwealth states that it is 10k ballots statewide. That number will not impact any election one way or another.

The Supremes may grant cert and hear the legal issue, but at this point I doubt they do it on an expedited basis. Either way the case comes out it will not have an impact on this election, only future ones.

---

There is nothing that appears to be going on in the courts right now that is going to affect the 2020 election result.

Not saying legal challenges are not good for possibly improving processes in future elections, and should happen if legitimate evidence, but 2020 itself is a done deal.

Sasappis said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

The link is to PA's motion asking SCOTUS not to take the case.


Edit to say I understand from a true legal nerd perspective that is not really a "motion asking SCOTUS not to take the case" but that was the easiest way to describe a Brief in Opposition of Petition for Certiorari without sounding like an a-hole.

---

And this is not even the Trump case. This is the Republican party case. I think this is the same case that alito ordered the ballots segregated a few weeks ago.

Since there were less than 10k votes received after election day, they are immaterial to the results of the election and the issue is likely moot, or at least not relevant to the presidents challenge.

---

It depends whether you believe it's only 10K votes received after election day.

Is there any allegation in the case that it's more that 10k?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Is there any allegation in the case that it's more that 10k?

---

Considering the Sec of State cannot even give a precise number nearly a month later why should anyone believe her?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Is there any allegation in the case that it's more that 10k?

---

No, but it also doesn't specify that there were 10K either. And I'm not saying it is or isn't 10K. But if there is a ruling in favor of tossing ballots that meet a certain criteria, then the question of how to define those that would be thrown out.

Reading some of the replies on this topic is just sad. People focusing on silly semantics instead of what I actually posted in OP. Bunch of losers.

Good Poster said:

---

Reading some of the replies on this topic is just sad. People focusing on silly semantics instead of what I actually posted in OP. Bunch of losers.

---

You're unhappy that people are discussing the legal issues potentially being raised to the SCOTUS in your thread about cases going to the SCOTUS instead of running with the spirit of the quickly-deleted tweet you posted in the OP without comment?

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Is there any allegation in the case that it's more that 10k?

---

Considering the Sec of State cannot even give a precise number nearly a month later why should anyone believe her?

---

Has the Republican Party of PA alleged in the papers that the number is in accurate?

Good Poster said:

---

Reading some of the replies on this topic is just sad. People focusing on silly semantics instead of what I actually posted in OP. Bunch of losers.

---

Have you looked at the OP lately?

For all we know, it could be about whether or not Trump will change his hair color to purple by Christmas.

Alito isn't in much of a hurry in dealing with this emergency application. He is requesting a response from PA on 9-Dec ... a day after safe harbor. Time is up.

Ddp

spider96 said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

Alito isn't in much of a hurry in dealing with this emergency application. He is requesting a response from PA on 9-Dec ... a day after safe harbor. Time is up.

---

Couldn't you view the move as Alito keeping the legal challenge alive past the safe harbor deadline? SCOTUS could then rule the election invalid. After all, Pennsylvania never did segregate the ballots after 8 pm per Alito's order.

---

*edited to add link about legal challenge reasoning.

Safe harbor deadline: Here's why Dec. 8 matters in the 2020 election

Quote:

---

Federal law (3 U.S. Code 5) frees a state from further challenge if it settles legal disputes and certifies its results at least six days before the Electoral College meeting, which occurs this year on Dec. 14.

"Whatever final decision that state reached by (Dec. 8) that's conclusive and final and binding and nobody has any right to second guess it," explained Adav Noti of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that focuses on voting rights, campaign finance, anti-gerrymandering work and government ethics. "

---

The OP relates to [Republican Party of PA v Boockvar which involves the late received ballots.

The Alito order from yesterday relates to Kelly v Pennsylvania which relates to whether the PA legislature could pass a law allowing mail in ballots without an amendment to PA constitution

Good Poster said:

---

black_ice said:

---

Did the tweet disappear?

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-542/162063/20201130140620945_RPP%20Opp%20Cert%20v.FINAL.pdf

I believe this is the link

---

Translating Shapiro from Pages 8-10: We broke the law. But it doesn't matter because we won anyway. And in any case there is no need to worry about this happening again: this was a one-off case of dirty dealing due to the circumstances surrounding this particular election.

Looks like Nixon had a case after all. We're in a situation where violating the law doesn't matter...



...because you would have won anyway.

But how can we take Shapiro and Boockvar's word for it in that regard when their promises before the Supreme Court regarding the segregation of late-arriving ballots weren't worth a Venezuelan Bolivar to begin with?