Source; https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/supreme-court-declines-pennsylvania-election-lawsuit-over-mail-in-balloting_3781967.html?&utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-04-19-1&mktids=fbbf247e97851d0f304814d5f46b99d4&est=kozJHOmWcR%2FYuRCfgVzgD8u4Hwkm0hm%2FWHf8UxjHLvzqkddbYhgg2qZdv25Ya5QeV53zWA%3D%3D

 

The Supreme Court declined on April 19 to hear a lawsuit regarding a Pennsylvania voting dispute nearly six months after the Nov. 3, 2020, election.

The court rejected an appeal from a Republican congressional candidate’s unsuccessful challenge of the state’s mail-in ballot initiatives, which is the final Nov. 3-related action to be dismissed related to Pennsylvania’s voting laws.

In a two-line order (pdf), the Supreme Court wrote: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.”

The decision is the Supreme Court’s latest rejection of a slew of election lawsuits that came before and after the Nov. 3 election, as President Donald Trump and his Republican allies attempted to challenge the results.

The suit, which was filed by GOP congressional candidate Jim Bognet, concerned whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded its authority by allowing greater access to early and mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, which, he argued, circumvented the state General Assembly’s authority. Four individual voters joined Bognet, who ultimately lost his congressional bid.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled in 2020 that extended mail-ballots could come in until three days after Election Day.

Trump and other Republicans have said that President Joe Biden had unfairly benefited from relaxed mail-in balloting measures that were implemented due to the CCP virus pandemic.

Bognet’s case was initially dismissed by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that neither Bognet nor the other challengers had the legal right to bring the case.

“This case presents an opportunity for the court to resolve these issues in an orderly manner on full briefing and argument, rather than on the ‘shadow docket’ under the time pressures of an ongoing election,” David Thompson, a lawyer for Bognet, said in court documents.

Thompson then argued that the state Supreme Court “rewrote” election deadlines and said that the Constitution gives authority to “state legislatures” and not “state judges” to handle federal election laws.

“Although Election Day has passed, the disputes around these questions are not going away,” Thompson said. “This Court’s intervention is needed to resolve splits in the lower courts. Federal courts of appeals have reached directly contrary holdings for which parties have standing to bring claims under the Elections.”

Robert Wiygul, a lawyer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, told the Supreme Court that they shouldn’t intervene in the case, adding that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court responded during the CCP virus pandemic and amid U.S. Postal Service delays.

“It is undisputed that the total number of ballots challenged by petitioners is less than the margin of victory in each of Pennsylvania’s federal races. Further, the vote totals certified by Pennsylvania do not include any of the ballots to which petitioners take exception,” he wrote (pdf).

The case is: 20-740 Jim Bognet, et al. v. Degraffenreid, Acting Sec. of Pa.

 
 
MY OPINION ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.
 
Sijnce the supreme Court seems to mhave been severely compromised and is shirking it's duty to the American people for some unknown reason, it's up to the people to put a stop to it's refusing to do it's sworn duty to America and Americans.
 
It's time for the people to become outraged at the Coup against America and DEMAND their State Legislatures petition Congress for an Article-V Amendment Proposal Convention.
 
Once 34 States send in that petition, Congress MUST BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, convene the convention. Once that convention is convened, Congress must step back and allow the people thrpough their State Legislatures propose amendments. Congress can NOT proppose any amendments during this type of convention. Since the branches of Government are no longer representing the will of the people who elected them.
 
The people can propose Amendments that will allow the people themselves to overrule any branch of governmental law, ruling, or regulation with a 3/4 vote by registered voters, in a special election called for that specific purpose by the people depending on the venue be it Local, State, or National.
 
They can propose Amendments that require Term Limits of a total of 12 years on Congress. Limit congressional raises and require an affirmative vote by the people for any raise to take effect.
 
They can Limit the Supreme court to 9 with lifetime limits as it is now.
 
They can clearly define the 2nd Amendment and define the words Militia to mean any adult over 18 years, Arms to mean any arms available, and Infringe to mean ANY Law, Restriction, Regulation, Tax, or basically anything concerning firearms will be required to be affirmatively voted on by the public to create it, and all existing laws to be voted on by the public first to see if they remain or are repealed by the public. (Most politicians will scream and holler about this because it takes away most of their usurped powers and returns them to the people)
 
They can require Congress to only have the same Health Care they provide for the public at large, and not be able to exempt themselves from any law they have legislated.
 
They can set a requirement for a balanced budget on a specific date after the new Congress is seated, and provide severs personal and political penalties for Congress members if they do not achieve that balanced budget.
 
They can Require every spending bill be made again for every new Congress, and eliminate the existing automatic refunding of certain spending bills.
 
They can require the end of adding riders on to bills and demand the bills are in plain english and easy to understand. If interpretation is needed, the public will at it's discretion, vote on it.
 
They can Require Voter rolls to be purged completely and anyone wanting to register, show up in person unless they are active military, handicapped, or too old to, and reregister in person to be given a Picture ID and a computer generated Voter ID number they will keep for life. Those too old or handicapped would be visited by a member of every political party to verify and register them in their homes, hospitals, nursing homes, or on their bases. The new registrations would be linked by computer to county and military death records, and the dead person and their ID number would be automatically purged from the system.
 
There are a number of things that need to be done and locked in by Amendment to regain the powers and control that has been leached from the people by Politicians since the Constitution was first Ratified and became the Law of the Land. We are faced by a multi-faceted attack by those who would destroy our Freedom and Liberty for their own profit and power to control. We must take up thue challenge to oppose them in mthe manner then founjders set for us to use.
 
The Tradesman
 
  

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • The solution to this problem of the Court refusing to even consider matters that are most apparent to the public as criminal cannot be forthcoming by any Article V Convention of the States. 

    Two reasons. Reason one, it makes little sense to imagine that one would change anything for the betterment of the public, and reason two, there is no evidence to support that a Convention of States composed of political legislatures in 34 States could ever agree on anything other than what might benefit each one of them in their pockets.

      Corruption in government is not confined to the Supreme Court. It is excercised  from the top down and the bottom up at all levels. If we had a majority of good, honest government in America Trump would never have been removed from office to begin with.

    And the Democrat Party knows it full well.  So should the rest of us.

    My view.

This reply was deleted.