|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,803
|
Legal Catch-22 in PA?
There's a particular topic in a recent appeal in the state of PA that interests me:
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5482
Quote:
|
__________________
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,198
|
Given the source, I think it's worth checking that the statement about why the plaintiffs are held not to have standing isn't an outright lie.
Dave |
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 7,147
|
I also can't find anything to support that this lawsuit would have been denied standing if filed prior to the election.
The denial on the bases of laches was not a surprising result. Waiting until after the election and requesting that huge parts of the voting populace be disenfranchised because you think the rules weren't correct is an extreme request. The obvious question is "why didn't you complain before all this damage was done" is asked. |
__________________
Gobble gobble |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,296
|
Indeed - timing is not the issue of the lack of standing.
|
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,126
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 96,031
|
Just from the few judgements I read the italicised text seems to be conflating judgements incorrectly. The standing decision was simply that the plaintiffs needed to file against their county not the state, and the too long was based on another set of plaintiffs who could have had filed months ago.
I suspect like always the actual legal filing will be different to the claims made outwith the court. Have you got a link to the appeal documents? |
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,895
|
In Googling around, it's not clear that such a suit was even filed. There's a wiki page for election lawsuits filed prior to the election, and the only one listed for Pennsylvania deals with the extension of the deadline for mail-in votes. I think that's the one the Republicans actually won, so there certainly wasn't a ruling against them based only on a lack of standing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-el...n#Pennsylvania |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,198
|
Cruz is also claiming that Pennsylvania was "chang[ing] the rules in the middle of the game" by enacting a law in advance of the election then conducting the election entirely in accordance with that law, while implying that waiting till the election's over then demanding to have votes thrown out that were made in accordance with that law will somehow be fairer. I managed to get behind the sofa before my irony meter exploded, but it'll take a fair while to tidy up the living room.
Dave |
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,231
|
|
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order." On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,803
|
|
__________________
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,198
|
|
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 30,594
|
|
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,895
|
|
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,895
|
Further to my above post, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a page dedicated to cases of public interest, which includes one specifically for the 2020 election: http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-stat.../election-2020 I've looked at all the ones that could possibly have been the one Cruz alluded to, and they were all post-election filings. So, either Cruz is full of ****, as expected, or the Penn supreme court page dedicated to tracking cases related to the 2020 election just happens to be missing this case. At this point I'll call Cruz's claim made-up ********, until and unless he can point us to this alleged ruling. |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Not a doctor.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,964
|
I think Cruz, a Harvard Law grad, was careful enough to cage his comment in "the plaintiffs point out that" language so that he can flimsily claim that he was merely repeating what was claimed by the plaintiffs.
Side note: if the plaintiffs pointed this out in court or in a filing with the court they would have provided a citation to the relevant case at that point. So, if I cared to look into this, that is where I would look. |
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Not a doctor.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,964
|
|
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Rough Around the Edges
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 7,063
|
|
__________________
Abhore that which is spelled wrong |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,708
|
Yeah, that's a bunch of BS.
Problem #1: THERE WAS ALREDY AN ELECTION UNDER THE RULES THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT. The primary. If they had an issue, they could have fought about it then. Problem #2: They can argue for standing based on imminent harm. Problem #3: Even if the did try to sue before, and were told they don't lack standing, then they can just refile later and that helps their argument & proposed remedy. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,039
|
|
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,584
|
FWIW, here's what Wikipedia says about standing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) I think it would be likely that citizens of Pennsylvania would have had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law if they had sued in a timely manner. That doesn't mean that they would have prevailed. Since Cruz gives no footnote to the particular case to which he refers, I cannot verify his claim. I wouldn't just take him at his word. |
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,584
|
In Pennsylvania, Republicans control both houses of the state legislature.
The law in question was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature by strong majorities in both houses.
Quote:
Quote:
Since they did not raise an objection at the time, laches a defense. Who would have had standing to challenge the law is moot if nobody even tried to. Candidates? Probably. Voters? Sure, why not? They would be affected by the law.
Quote:
|
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,895
|
One argument I saw was that people who voted in person had less time to vote (one day vs. several weeks) as compared to those who voted by mail, and that this was effectively discriminatory to in-person voters. Of course, this falls apart when you realize that every voter had the option of voting by mail. Those who opted to vote in person made a choice to limit themselves, it was not imposed on them by anyone else. That far more Republicans than Democrats made this choice doesn't matter, it was still their choice. |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,093
|
In the request for injunction, they wrote the following
Quote:
B) if true, can we say the legislature thinks 77 is constitutional? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,039
|
|
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,039
|
I disagree that the voters would have standing. They may be "affected" by the law, but how are they harmed? They'd have to show how allowing others to use mail in votes harmed them, since they were allowed to use mail-in voting, too, if they wanted to.
Something like that came up in the federal case in PA. The voters sued because others were allowed to cure their vote, and these folks weren't. The judge denied standing because they were complaining about policies in other counties that didn't apply to them. If they were to sue anyone, they should be suing their own counties that didn't let them cure their vote. In other words, the other county allowing voters to cure their vote did not harm you. In this case, it's even worse because the plaintiffs (voters) would already have the same rights, so the fact that others utilize it does not mean you are harmed. I think the candidate has a stronger argument on the grounds that if it is unconstitutional, then illegal votes will be counted. |
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|