Preparing for a legal battle: Supreme Court orders late arriving ballots to be segregated

Share:

HARRISBURG, PA – During the disputed general election, President Donald Trump’s supporters are upset because ballots are still coming in, past the deadline set, and being counted.

They are also upset that Republican poll watchers have reportedly effectively been banned from watching the ballot counting. 

Now, the Supreme Court has ordered that all late ballots that are being received be segregated from the others until a court decision has been made on their legitimacy. 

The number of ballots that are affected in the ruling are estimated to be somewhere between 3,000 to 4,000. 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, ordered the move on November 6th to have all of those ballots segregated which insinuates that the Supreme Court may later rule to invalidate the late arriving ballots. 

The order by the Justice was only part of what Republicans wanted, they wanted a full stop of the count of the late ballots, which was not granted.

Ned Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University, spoke about the move in saying:

“This preserves the status quo until any further order of the Court, after the possibility of a response.  It’s also significant in that it does not stop the counting of the segregated votes, but possible commingling of ballots that could not be undone later.”

Pennsylvania Republicans had attempted to stop the extended deadline which the state had approved in the last few months to prevent an issue like this from happening.  The case made its way to the State Supreme Court which ruled that the upheld the states mail in ballot due date extensions. 

Republicans then took the case to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case as they did not have enough time to review all of the arguments to make a decision that close to an election. 

However, Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, gave the impression that they believed the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court may have overstepped their constitutional authority over state elections. 

The same group of Justices also implied that they may consider the Republican led appeal after the election is over.  If they do hear the appeal, four Justices (the majority) will have to be in agreement in either granting or denying the appeal.

The issue behind the late date for the mail in ballots are that Republicans claim that it further enables democratic voters to skew the election in their favor. 

The mindset is that there was widespread voter fraud and that people were illegally casting mail in ballots through various means. 

Something that Republicans claim bolsters their claim are the massive dumps of Biden votes that seemingly appeared overnight in the state which slowly picked away of the large lead President Trump had prior. 

Claims of fraud of this sort were fueled when reports of a massive dump of Biden votes, over 130,000, had been received.  People, accurately, said that this could well be a sign of voter fraud as it would be statistically impossible for that many votes to appear all for one person.

Problem with this information, although it was reported from election officials in Shiawassee County, was allegedly nothing more than a typo.  According to the New York Times, the election clerk, Abby Bowen, said:

“All it was is there was an extra zero that got typed in.”

Once the error was discovered, it was corrected within twenty minutes of being posted.  What the alleged accurate information was that Biden had received 15,371 votes instead of the 153,710 votes that were inaccurately recorded.  

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

Nancy Pelosi was hoping she and the House would get to pick the President – but she should have done her homework.

November 4, 2020

WASHINGTON, DC – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has declared that if there is dispute and controversy over the Presidential election, the House is prepared to make that decision.

The Constitution provides a roadmap for that to be done. But it stands to reason that Pelosi’s excitement means that she doesn’t understand how it actually works. 

It is also important to point out that the process that she is referring to has actually been put in motion twice before, in 1801 and 1825.

Ironically, the House has no obligation to pay attention to the popular vote. This happened in 1824 when Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and had the most votes in the electoral college. However, he didn’t reach 270 or have a majority of the electoral votes and the House chose John Quincy Adams instead.

Apparently, Pelosi believes that she can bang her gavel and declare a winner, but here is how it works.

According to the Dan Bongino Show

“In this case, the Democrats have a 232 to 197 lead in the House and aren’t projected to lose it. However, there is a twist. The new President would not be decided by a vote of the entire House, but by a vote of the House delegation from each state. In other words, California gets the same number of votes as South Dakota in this situation.

Currently, Republicans hold a small lead in control of state delegations and are projected to maintain it after the election. In other words, the Democrat-controlled House, run by Nancy Pelosi, would probably end up electing Donald Trump if they had to decide the election.

Can you imagine the wailing the gnashing of teeth after that outcome? In any case, since this hasn’t happened in 195 years, it probably won’t happen this time either. Of course, in the extremely unlikely event that it does, let’s hope Republican delegations hold a majority of the states.”

 

It appears that Pelosi doesn’t grasp that. She seems to beleive that either the people will elect Joe Biden, or she will. 

“But let’s not worry about that right now. We’re ready. We’re prepared. We’ve been ready for a while because we see this irresponsibility of the president, his disrespect for the Constitution, for our democracy and for the integrity of our elections.

So we’re ready for him,” she told NPR’s All Things Considered

“The speaker of the House is ready for that prominent role, but let’s not worry about that right now. What we want to be ready for is a big vote tomorrow to dispel any thought other than that, on January 20, Joe Biden will be inaugurated president of the United States, that we will have a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Our country is a great country. We’re even great enough to survive one term of Donald Trump. Two terms would be such a serious setback that I worry for our country.” the California Democrat remarked on her personal feelings about a second Trump term.

As we await the returns, it appears that the Democrats will maintain control of the House of Representatives, so it would make sense that Pelosi will continue in her role as Speaker of the House. 

And this is a woman who has been hellbent on overturning the will of the people who voted to elect Donald Trump in 2016, leading the charge in the impeachment process of the President. 

In essence, she has declared that it doesn’t matter what the American people want, she wants to see him out of office, regardless of what it takes to achieve that outcome. 

Even if it means she find a way to name herself the President pending a massive court battle outcome. 

Law Enforcement Today’s own Pat Droney highlighted her argument in a recent editorial.

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:
Related Posts