In October, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took it upon itself to hold that mail-in ballots could arrive after Election Day if they were mailed on November 3 and, almost as if to ensure fraud, that those mail-in ballots without postmarks would be presumed to have been timely. An eight-justice U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the matter. After the election, though, Justice Alito ordered that Pennsylvania segregate mail-in ballots, indicating further review. Republicans duly filed a request for a review, and, on Tuesday, Pennsylvania filed its unimpressive opposition brief.
Pennsylvania’s opening argument is that there’s no way the Supreme Court should decide whether a state engaged in unconstitutional conduct in a federal election because doing so is just too big!
Shipwreckedcrew, whose legal analyses at RedState are always must-reads, correctly writes that this is an insulting argument:
While there are certainly different levels of historic significance when considering the role of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Defendants seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is the institution which outlawed racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education; recognized states’ ability to regulate private enterprises in Munn v. Illinois; […]
Read the full story from American Thinker
Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.
