It wasn’t a big surprise when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shot down a lower court’s decision to block the certification of the state’s election results.
The liberal-leaning PA Supreme Court will never give a constitutional ruling that favors President Trump the time of day.
Their reasoning was that the lawsuit wasn’t filed in a “timely manner” upon the passage of the controversial Act 77 in 2019.
In an unsigned order, the PA Supreme Court found petitioners had waited too long to challenge the 2019 state law that authorized mail-in ballots. https://t.co/7lTnZLGwFK
— USA TODAY Politics (@usatodayDC) November 29, 2020
Here is a statement from the PA Supreme Court:
BREAKING: PA Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit by Congressman Mike Kelly and candidate Sean Parnell attempting to invalidate PA's mail-in ballots. Cites how late this was filed as part of the reason they're throwing it out. Here's the final paragraph of Justice Wecht's concurrence: pic.twitter.com/wvlJ4bOXPF
— David Kaplan (@DKaplanWTAE) November 28, 2020
The 2020 presidential election falls on an entirely different scale compared to previous elections.
The amount of reported voter fraud is unlike anything ever seen in America and bypassing the U.S. and state constitutions sets a dangerous precedent.
To ensure free and fair elections for our country, the U.S. Supreme Court must rule to set the precedent that only legal votes should be counted in any election.
On Tuesday, Attorney Gregory H. Teufel filed a 40-page emergency application for injunction and petition to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Some Republicans have called for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case:
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 1, 2020
Our friends at The Gateway Pundit received a copy of the emergency appeal and shared this break down:
The GOP attorney argued that “Article VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution make clear that there are two, and only two, constitutionally-permissible methods of voting: 1) offering your ballot in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and 2) exceptions to the first method limited to those persons qualifying under the absentee voting provision, Article VII, § 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court circumvented the state legislature, made laws out of thin air and ruled mail-in/ballots with no dates or handwritten names/addresses on the outer envelopes can be counted.
Tuefel argued that the US Supreme Court holds jurisdiction over Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruling which he labeled an “offensive sword against Petitioners.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Applicants’ request for an emergency writ of injunction (or alternatively a stay of lower proceedings), grant certiorari on the questions presented herein, treat the Application papers as a merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable,” Attorney Tuefel concluded.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take the case, all eyes will be on Pennsylvania to watch the ruling.
A GOP victory here could be the first domino to fall that flips the election for President Trump.