Trump loses in PA appeal.. Boiling down the panel's ruling, 'there may be violations of PA law but PA doesn't mind.' To quote the judge,"PA law is willing to overlook many technical...

JW

Boiling down the panel's ruling, 'there may be violations of PA law but PA doesn't mind.' To quote the judge,"PA law is willing to overlook many technical defects".

Smedley_buzkill

JW wrote:

Boiling down the panel's ruling, 'there may be violations of PA law but PA doesn't mind.' To quote the judge,"PA law is willing to overlook many technical defects".

This has also opened the door to an appeal to the SCOTUS. We will see how that turns out with a Conservative majority on the court. BTW, this happened several days ago. It has moved on to an appeal filed with the Supreme Court.

PeterS

JW wrote:

Boiling down the panel's ruling, 'there may be violations of PA law but PA doesn't mind.' To quote the judge,"PA law is willing to overlook many technical defects'.

Is this the Appeals Court decision? It was a 21-page opinion was written by Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee. So you can't cry about "activist" judges ruling against Trump. This was one of Trump's own men so I have to think it was more to it than "technical defects."

This is part of what the judge had to say: “Free, f**r e******ns are the lifeblood of our democracy,” the judge wrote. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an e******n unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

All Trump is doing is making broad accusations of c***ting and then doing nothing to prove it. That's because you can't prove what never happened. This isn't Fox News, saying something doesn't make it true...

Carlos

JW wrote:

Boiling down the panel's ruling, 'there may be violations of PA law but PA doesn't mind.' To quote the judge,"PA law is willing to overlook many technical defects".

What fools these mortals be

PeterS

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

This has also opened the door to an appeal to the SCOTUS. We will see how that turns out with a Conservative majority on the court. BTW, this happened several days ago. It has moved on to an appeal filed with the Supreme Court.

This was a three-panel court with two Bush appointees and one Trump appointee. The 21-page opinion was written by Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee. Judges David Smith and Michael Chagares, both Bush appointees, joined in the decision. You had a conservative majority and you lost. What makes you think Trump will fare any better before the Supreme Court?

ImLogicallyRight

JW wrote:

Boiling down the panel's ruling, 'there may be violations of PA law but PA doesn't mind.' To quote the judge,"PA law is willing to overlook many technical defects".

But will the legislature, which has the final say.

ImLogicallyRight

PeterS wrote:

Is this the Appeals Court decision? It was a 21-pa... (show quote)

***“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an e******n unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
>>>They are providing proof to the Pennsylvania Legislature and they have the final say.

*** That's because you can't prove what never happened.
>>>The proof is there and more and more is getting aired right now in Pennsylvania in front of the legislature, the final say.

PeterS

ImLogicallyRight wrote:

***“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an e******n unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
>>>They are providing proof to the Pennsylvania Legislature and they have the final say.

*** That's because you can't prove what never happened.
>>>The proof is there and more and more is getting aired right now in Pennsylvania in front of the legislature, the final say.

So they couldn't provide the proof to the court system but they suddenly found it and are presenting it to the legislature? Well, good luck, that's all I can say...

donrent Loc: SW Florida -Born Texas-Lived Panama & Alaska

Hey numb nuts, Trump didn't lose a thing..............

JW

PeterS wrote:

Is this the Appeals Court decision? It was a 21-pa... (show quote)

You don't seem to understand what the filing was. It has nothing to do with c***ting. It is all about violations of the PA e******n laws and violations of the US Constitution. The SCOTUS will determine whether PA laws are laws or options. Sydney Powell is handling the legal end of the c***ting aspect of the e******n. Giuliani is dealing with the c***ting by going directly to the PA legislature and it appears that they are going to send e*****rs to the E*******l College committed to v**e for Trump. The tide is turning. At this point I am 85% certain Trump will be reelected.

JW

ImLogicallyRight wrote:

But will the legislature, which has the final say.

It is reported that the Legislature, both houses, will introduce resolutions to send Trump e*****rs to the E*******l College, voiding support for Biden...

JW

PeterS wrote:

So they couldn't provide the proof to the court system but they suddenly found it and are presenting it to the legislature? Well, good luck, that's all I can say...

One more time, they have never attempted to file for c***ting. The filing is on legal grounds of violations of the PA laws and the US Constitution.

What they are doing with the legislature is an end run around the courts. Even if the SCOTUS finds for Trump, it may be irrelevant since the legislature, after listening to the proof, has agreed to file a resolution in both houses to award PA e*****rs to Trump and invalidate the Biden support.

PeterS

JW wrote:

It is reported that the Legislature, both houses, will introduce resolutions to send Trump e*****rs to the E*******l College, voiding support for Biden...

Reported by whom?

PeterS

JW wrote:

You don't seem to understand what the filing was. ... (show quote)

Well, I'm glad you are so excited but you just lost to a three-panel conservative court, what makes you think you will be any more successful with more conservative judges...they still have to look at the same laws.

As for the c***ting part, you haven't proven a single instance. If you make it to the Supreme Court, and I think that's a stretch, you'll have to hope that you can get 5 conservatives when you just failed to get three. Both Roberts and Gorsuch don't seem to be ideologues and you need ideologues to win this case. So I'll see your 85% and raise you 100% because the house of cards you've built is far too flimsy to stand...

JW

PeterS wrote:

Reported by whom?

https://nationalfile.com/video-pa-sen-mastriano-unveils-joint-resolution-to-assign-e*******l-v**es-in-legislature-pave-way-for-trump-victory/