Sunday, November 29, 2020

Pennsylvania, Chapter 5

Vox, who is an absolute ferret tenacity-wise on the election, sought the opinion of a lawyer-pal on the Pennsy Supremes' decision of yesterday.

That decision reversed a lower-court ruling enjoining the State from certifying its vote based on a claim of un-Constitutional legislation regarding mail-in ballots.  Alito already noted the dispute a couple of weeks ago and ordered Pennsy clerks to set mail-in ballots aside in case of court action but allowed them to be counted pro tem.

What does the barrister say?

...At common law, equitable cases had a variety of doctrines and defenses that did not apply for legal remedies. As one example, one who seeks a suit in equity must come with ‘clean hands.’ So if you can show that the plaintiff engaged in illegitimate behavior, you can argue that the plaintiff should not get an equitable decision even if that decision might otherwise be justified.

Another equitable doctrine is ‘laches,’ which means that you have to timely act. It is a defense that essentially says, “Plaintiffs took too long to make their claim.” Note that a laches defense does not address the merits of the underlying argument. It is solely a procedural claim.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied upon laches and said, “This law went into effect a year ago and none of the Plaintiffs did anything about it.” The opinion notes that the plaintiffs did nothing upon the law’s passing. The PA Supreme Court says, “They waited until millions cast their vote” so they will not allow the suit to go forward....

The Court ignored "standing" in this case. 

Well, so what?

...Given the number of cases that are pending, I would bet that the USSC would take some type of case if for no other reason that it would give guidelines to lower courts, including appellate courts, for how to decide these cases in the future....

By that he means ALL of the pending cases, including those to be filed in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada in the next few days.  He's expecting a "narrowly tailored" ruling from SCOTUS, too.

Drama!!  But if past pattern holds, you won't read or hear about much (if any) of this in the MSM.  After all, these are "conspiracy theories" or "debunked claims". 

No comments: