Supreme Court might now re-examine Pennsylvania vote-by-mail Case — Justice Amy Coney Barrett could be tiebreaker

Supreme Court might now re-examine Pennsylvania vote-by-mail Case — Justice Amy Coney Barrett could be tiebreaker

Supreme Court might now re-examine Pennsylvania vote-by-mail Case — Justice Amy Coney Barrett could be tiebreaker

Posted by: | |Categories Featured, Law and Legal
Share:

WASHINGTON, DC – With Amy Coney Barrett having been officially sworn in as the latest Supreme Court Justice, there is ongoing speculation that the Supreme Court may take another look at a previous split-decision regarding mail-in voting in Pennsylvania.

On October 26th, the Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, thus affording President Trump to instill a conservative justice to the courts before the election in November.

In a vote that tallied 52 to 48 in favor of Barrett’s appointment, it was the end to a series of exhaustive endeavors to delay the now-justice’s position within the Supreme Court.

But with this new appointment, there’s speculation about whether Judge Barrett could serve as a tie breaker for a Supreme Court split decision earlier in October regarding an application to stay a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on mail-in voting practices drafted by Pennsylvania Democrats.

In the simplest of terms, Democrats in Pennsylvania pushed to allow mail-in ballots that are received up to three days after the November election to still be counted towards the vote tally.

According to the push, it wouldn’t matter if officials could even tell if the ballot was postmarked on time.

On September 17th, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Democrats request, and thus that resulted in state Republicans looking to appeal that decision at the federal level.

But by the time the case made its way to the Supreme Court, Ruther Bader Ginsberg had passed away and the decision reached by the federal court was a 4-4 split.

With the split decision from October 19th at the Supreme Court, that resulted in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling staying in place. But what the split decision also means is that there was no precedent ever set by the Supreme Court.

Basically, a split decision is as good as no decision.

According to National Constitution Center, the following is noted about split decisions by the highest court in the country:

“America must wait for an answer to questions raised in such cases, until another appeal reaches the Justices and gets reviewed, or the Justices decide – under a difficult and rare process – to reconsider.”

And sure enough, the Pennsylvania GOP has challenged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling again, citing that the court’s ruling is at odds with Article II. §1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  

That portion of the Constitution plainly says that only the state legislature could alter election matters of that nature – and not any court.

And Pennsylvania Democrats only brought the mail-in voting matter to the state supreme court when the Pennsylvania Legislature refused to entertain any sort of amending when Governor Wolf requested it.

What this means is that the Supreme Court could rule (without resulting in a split decision) that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling is invalidated by ruling that only the Pennsylvania Legislature can make decisions that pertain to regulating elections.

Now whether this would actually happen with there being mere days until the election is anyone’s guess – but it’s certainly a possibility.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

In other news related to mail-in voting, Twitter recently locked down the account of President Trump’s national press secretary for his reelection efforts due to simply questioning the efficacy of mail-in voting. 

Here’s that report. 

_

WASHINGTON, DC – Just before the last Presidential debate, Twitter locked down the account of Hogan Gidley, President Trump’s national press secretary for his reelection campaign.  Why, a reasonable person may ask?  Allegedly because Gidley had made a tweet disparaging mail-in voting.

Gidley tweeted:

“Got ‘my’…uh wait…no…”Daniel’s” ballot in the mail?!?  Who is that?  Apparently it’s a former tenant who hasn’t lived in the unit for 8 YEARS!!!  But yeah, sure…the mainstream media is correct…unsolicited vote-by-mail is “totally safe.”

According to Fox News, Gidley also tweeted out a picture of the mail-in ballot, with his address and Daniel’s information.  After all, he knew that the liberals would claim that he was lying and he had to offer proof to the contrary.  However, he still got called a liar.

Shortly after the tweet, Gidley learned that his Twitter account had been banned for showing that he, like many, many others in the country, have received mail-in ballots for the wrong people in the mail. 

That is not inaccurate, misleading or false, it is fact, a fact in which he was able to show proof of, however, that was not satisfactory to Twitter.

In the notice of the Twitter suspension, Gidley was informed:

“You may not post content providing false information about voting or registering to vote.”

After Gidley received his Twitter account back, after he was forced to delete the tweet in order to get access, he posted:

“I, like many other Americans, received a ballot in the mail that was not meant for me.  Twitter suspended my account for simply posting about it. 

This censorship is insanity.  We must continue to expose and fight Big Tech’s clear bias against conservatives who speak the truth.”

In an interview with Fox News, Gidley said:

“I, like many other Americans, received a ballot in the mail that was meant for me, and that proves what the President has been saying is one hundred percent correct – that there are serious issues with the Democrats’ plan for universal, unsolicited mail in voting.

“Irrationally, inexplicably suspending my Twitter account simply for tweeting about the incorrect ballot is completely insane, and it won’t cover up the fact that Democrats changing the way we vote just weeks before an election is dangerous and fraught with the potential for massive fraud.”

Andrew Clark, President Trump’s Rapid Response Director for the reelection campaign also had concerns over the Twitter suspension of Gidley.  He also noted that the suspension of the account was done a few hours prior to the final Presidential debate was aired.  He said:

“This is just another attempt by Twitter to silence the Trump campaign, hours before the final presidential debate no less.”

A spokesperson for Twitter responded to Fox’s questions about Gidley’s account suspension.  According to Fox, the account was suspended because they felt that Gidley had violated their rules on civic integrity.

The policy said that people “may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic process.  This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process.”

The locking down of Republican Twitter accounts has been increasing as of late. 

The week prior to this situation, the White House Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, had her account suspended for sharing the New York Posts media account of allegedly damning information for both Hunter Biden and his father, current Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden, and their endeavors overseas.

They also suspended the Trump campaign’s twitter account after a post was made calling Joe Biden a liar along with videos of the alleged Biden corruption.  Twitter claimed they did so for the same reason they blocked the New York Post, because those materials could have been hacked.

Of course, Twitter had no issue with released tax records that belonged to President Trump, after the only way they could have been obtained, and released, was through some sort of criminal endeavor.

_

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Share:
Submit a Correction
About The Author

Gregory Hoyt is an I.T. Marketing and Sales professional based out in Sierra Vista, Arizona. While being a staunch and outspoken advocate of law enforcement and first responders, Gregory Hoyt also has the experience of having spent nearly 5 years in prison as well. Since then, he's used his unique perspective to offer support and commentary about the criminal justice system. When not working or combating bad ideas, Hoyt also leisurely studies economics, history, and law.

Related Posts