40 Burst results for "Pennsylvania Supreme Court"
Fresh update on "pennsylvania supreme court" discussed on Our American Stories
"Vaccine candidate. Drugmaker Madonna announced it was filing paperwork with the U. S Food and Drug Administration for possible approval of its Corona virus vaccine Under the emergency use authorization, Madonna says the final stage of its large scale clinical trial shows of more than 94% efficacy rate. While fighters candidate already before the FDA is reported to be 95% effective If both are green lighted, officials say Americans could see two different vaccines before Christmas. This is Casey Steagall president Trump on social media, urging the FDA to hold the hearings sooner than 10 days from now, the Department of Homeland Security says it's watching for vaccine fraud. The goal of operation stolen promise, says the agency's Matt Allen. When Americans get vaccine, they get genuine vaccine and then we can help the industry and help the rest of the U. S government. Support and build public confidence in vaccines as they become available in, says homeland Security has seized more than $27 million in illicit proceeds from vaccine scams. Attorneys for an imprisoned actor and comedian will plead his case before Pennsylvania's highest court today, Bill Cosby has spent more than two years in prison for the drugging and sexual assault of Andrea Constand, a Temple University employee he had taken under his wing. Now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear his appeal and arguments are expected to focus on the trial judge's decision to let five other Cosby accusers testified for the prosecution. An intermediate appeals court last year, said the trial judge's decision on the other accusers was reasonable. Then the state Supreme Court jumped in. When he appealed again. Cosby, who was 83 will not participate in the online.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses Trump challenge to vote
"Pennsylvania's supreme court over the weekend throughout a lower court order blocking the state from certifying dozens of contests and it's november third election. The lawsuit asserted that the state's expansive mail in voting law is unconstitutional. But that law is now a year old and in a unanimous decision. The court said it is too late to challenge it justice. David wrote that. The plaintiffs failed to show quote. Even a single mail in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted. President elect joe biden defeated president trump by more than eighty thousand votes in pennsylvania.
Fresh update on "pennsylvania supreme court" discussed on Stephanie Miller
"That's exactly one week after the agency takes up visors vaccine. This comes as a top official with the Trump Administration's operation Warp Speed, says anyone who wants a shot conjugate one by June. President like Joe Biden's victory in Wisconsin is official. The Elections Commission chairwoman signed off Monday on his narrow win over President Trump after recounts in two Democratic counties. The move came just hours after Arizona certified results fighting flipped both states. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will take a Bill Cosby's appeal on Tuesday. Tom Roberts has the details. The court will consider Cosby's appeal as he's challenging his sexual assault conviction. Cosby's in prison for between three and 10 years for crimes against Andrea Constand more than a decade ago. He was convicted in 2018 and was sentenced later that year under Armor and Golden State Warriors star Stefan Curry are teaming up for a new brand compete with Nike and the Jordan brand. Under armor has announced it will launch the Curry brand this week, which will feature shoes and clothes for several sports, including basketball and golf Curries band with under armor since 2013. So you're Kelly Clarkson is awarded custody over two young Children following her divorce from Brandon Blackstock. Los Angeles County Judge ruled in favor of granting Clark's in primary custody of six year old river rose and four year old Remmy Canal Zander. The judge's ruling also stated that Blackstock, the son of country icon Reba McIntyre, will video chat with the kids daily during.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses another election case brought by Republicans
"To justice. The shooter is still at large. Backers of President Trump are losing another court case challenging the results of the election. Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit which wanted all mail in ballots tossed out. The court ruled that they had waited too long to challenge the 2019 law that created no excuse mail voting about 2.6
Fresh update on "pennsylvania supreme court" discussed on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
"Of the year. I'm Lee, Scylla. Serra and Mrs Fox News. Riley here Monday. November 30th 2020, You are listening to the O'Reilly Update Is this happening today in America? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejects another election lawsuit. New York City reopens some public schools. Los Angeles shuts down restaurants Covert kills the busiest shopping day of the year. America's rank Thanksgiving 2020, the most stressful holiday ever. Also, I had the pope versus Donald Trump. First of Pennsylvania Supreme Court, dismissing yet another lawsuit from the Trump campaign. Republicans say election workers illegally counted at least a million absentee ballots without Proper verification. The case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. As the election controversy goes on and on. New York City Mayor De Blasio's ordering New York's grammar schools to reopen despite rising infection rates students in the Big Apple returning to the classrooms just days after officials closed the building's furious parents..
Pennsylvania high court rejects lawsuit challenging election
"Pennsylvania's highest court has rejected a Republican effort to block the certification of dozens of contests on the state's November third election ballot the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out a lower court's order halting certification of any remaining contests new unanimous decision the court said the underlying lawsuit was filed months after the expiration of a time limit in Pennsylvania is your old mail in voting law that allowed for challenges to it the Republican plaintiffs had sought to either throw out the two point five million mail in ballots submitted under the law war directed states Republican controlled legislature to pick Pennsylvania's presidential electors I'm Ben Thomas
Fresh update on "pennsylvania supreme court" discussed on Mark Levin
"Not the case. So even when it comes to the issue of so called latches The state Supreme Court. Just on the issue of latches was wrong. In plain English. The five road Democrat elected Labor boss, judges or justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court knew exactly what they were doing. You know exactly what they were doing. And if the U. S Supreme Court does not step in And address this And the electors will be sent. Certificate of ascertainment of what is called be sent to the archivist will then and turn collect them all from the States and cinnamon do a joint session of Congress. By statute meets on January 6th the new Congress. You count the votes. Pennsylvania electors will be tainted. Because they will be there in violation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Excuse me, the Pennsylvania Constitution. It will be tainted because there will be there in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. And meanwhile People who say Let's move along. Let's get over it. If this isn't fixed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it'll come up again in the next election. That is, it will constantly be a recycling oven Unconstitutional Act. Every time there's a vote in this key battleground state. Let's get on with it. I hear Mark fees and and others. Nice guy. Good man. Let's get on with it. Trump can run in 2024. He could be Grover Cleveland here, my dear friend, Victor Davis Hanson. Like Andrew Jackson, he you know he may take him. No, no, no, no, no. The fix is in for the future to for the next election. The fix is in If this isn't resolved. Donald Trump that 74 million votes. He got 11 million more votes than before. He got more votes than any man in history. Except supposedly now Joe Biden. Nobody is going to perform like that again. You want House seats held on US Senate even though 23 of 33 seats were up. Of course we have Georgia, but I'm not talking about Georgia. Right now. I'm talking about what is what is This isn't gonna happen again. He's the most popular Republican to run for president since Ronald Reagan had his massive landslide. There's no question about it. And even he couldn't get enough votes. Out run The changes in Pennsylvania notice this. I'm not even arguing fraud here. In this case. I'm I missed you. But is it Don't need one example fraud. Because the fraud is the court. The fraud is the court. That's a separate case. This case I'm talking about wasn't even brought by the Trump campaign. It was brought by Congressman Mike Kelly. Courageous Sean Parnell, courageous and six other Planus. They brought this case themselves. This is gonna part of the Trump campaign. And to me. This is one of the most important cases. Of all the cases in the United States. One of them. Because that determines whether we're still a constitutional republic or not. In addition to the issues of whether or not we have a legitimate vote, don't get me wrong. Those are key cases. Those air T cases. So you had a rogue act by a legislature. Of a rogue decision by five Democrats on the Supreme Court. The question is whether It will be tainted. Now, you might say, Well, Mark, what do you expect them to do? They were 2.5 2.6 million mail in votes. What are you saying? We should disenfranchise all those people Mark Is that what you actually expect these justices to do? Mark? Expect these justices. Appall the United States Constitution. They do not need to fashion any relief. They should uphold the United States Constitution and send the matter back. The Pennsylvania state legislature. Because in the end These air political decisions within the context. The state and federal constitution. The Supreme Court doesn't have the fashion any remedy other than upholding the Constitution of the United States. Which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is bastardizing. Which the Pennsylvania Legislature has bastardized. The question is, will the Supreme Court allow them to get away with it? The Supreme Court did not. Allow the Florida Supreme Court to get away with it. In the end, it'll be up to Congress because, like it or not, media like it or not, national review like it or not. Trump haters and all the rest. In our country in the end. Congress Council electors. And the Congress makes the final decision. Not a direct democracy. We never had been We're turning into one. Hope these past 45 minutes have explained this one case to you. These air seriously battles According to National Review and others. According to the Democrats, according to Republicans across the country. They should throw in the town. Allow allow this injustice to stand. Is that what you.
Philadelphia - Pennsylvania Supreme Court Throws Out Republican Congressman’s Lawsuit Challenging All Mail-In Votes
"Court has unanimously unanimously dismissed dismissed the the lawsuit lawsuit by by Republican Republican lawmakers lawmakers dealing dealing another another blow blow to to the the president's president's reelection reelection campaign campaign Cable Cable Ow Ow is is Antoinette Antoinette Lee Lee has has that that story. story. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a lawsuit by Republican lawmakers, claiming the state's mailing voting law is unconstitutional and reversed a lower court's order that puts certification of the vote on hold. The court says the lawmakers led by western Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly waited too long until After the election and days before certification to follow suit on that basis. In a concurring statement, Justice David Wet notes There's no mechanism for the state Legislature to choose the state's electors, one of the suggestions GOP lawmakers made in their suit and swing at Lee Cala
Fresh update on "pennsylvania supreme court" discussed on Mark Levin
"Him a proud conservative, no ifs, ands or buts call in at 8773813811. Why I left. This tawdry story is now the plaintiffs. Are stuck in the prison of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and that court system How did they break out? This always had to deal with a federal question. You need a federal question or a federal issue. You don't appeal to the district quarter Circuit Court. This is an appeal from a state Supreme Court to the U. S. Supreme Court. There's not only a federal question here, there's not only important federal question here. There is a grave federal constitutional question here. This relates specifically and directly How we choose the president and vice president of the United States, let alone members of Congress. Specifically To the Electoral college. Among other things, we can look at Bush versus Gore. The U. S. Supreme Court stepped in Under the great leadership of cheese stuff to this William Rehnquist. Fortunately, he's no longer with us. Instead, we get a lightweight by the name of John Roberts. As a general rule, the court wrote. This court defers to a state court's interpretation of a state statute. But in the case of a law enacted by a state Legislature applicable, not only two elections to state offices. But also The selection of presidential electors. Legislatures not acting solely under the authority, given it by the people of the state. By virtue of a direct ran of authority made under Article two. Section one Clause two of the United States Constitution. Bush versus Palm Beach County canvassing board. 5 31 u S. 70 76 2000. When a state Legislature therefore violates it. States Constitution. Reportedly in furtherance of its plenary authority to regulate federal elections and appoint electors. It also violates the United States Constitution. Again from the Bush decision. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing presidential electors presents a federal constitutional issue now. If the Legislature If the Legislature itself If the legislature itself violates its own constitution. It's in the same place. It's in the same place. Article one section for an Article two Section one of the Constitution Grant plenary authority to state legislatures. Enact laws that govern the conduct of elections yet The Legislature may enact laws governing the conduct of elections. No legislative enactment may contravened the requirements. The Pennsylvania or United States constitutions. Other words, they have plenary power within their constitutional authority. Not beyond it. Because the state legislature failed to strictly comply with the requirements. The Pennsylvania Constitution. Article 11 Section one For amending its constitution. Facts. 70 Sevens, no excuse absentee voting provisions. Is fatally defective. And unconstitutional under state and federal law. Now. As for the Supreme Court's decision of Pennsylvania Had violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause and due process clause, as applies to the eight plaintiffs. Basically they're barred access to the courts forever in perpetuity. A clear violation of the right to petition the government for a redress. And that right? Have access to judicial previous proceedings is a component of the right to petition government. It is a Pellman to the federal Constitution. Want to circle back to this issue of latches. You were too late. In other words, the Pennsylvania supreme courts use of that is erroneous. That's also subject to review by the U. S. Supreme Court not to get into the nitty gritty but This case involves Not only a federally created right but a federal right for which the soul remedy is inequity. Other words, a court takes up the case and looks at it. Makes a decision based on the law and based on reason. The duty is that of federal courts sitting as national courts throughout the country. To apply their own principles and enforcing equitable right. Has again the Supreme Court Road and Bush versus Gore in 2000. We deal here not with an ordinary election, but the election for the president of the United States. And they said in the context of a presidential election, state imposed restrictions implicated uniquely important national interests for president and vice president, United States so the only elected officials who represent all the voters of the nation Significant departure from this legislative scheme represents a federal constitutional question. The text of the election law itself and not just this interpretation by the courts of the state's takes on independent significance. Whether the state court has denied to has denied rights asserted under local law The protection of which the Constitution guarantees is a question upon which The petition is running title. That's a separate Supreme court decision and so forth. Let's go back to this latches issue, which is what the state Supreme Court held its hat on, in which Yes, it's a lack his issue. No question about that. They're too late. I already told you But they could not have met the standards for standing in the first place. They had to wait for a harm The harm was the election. They came and soon thereafter and now they're told too late. You should have come in earlier. So under Pennsylvania Lawless two elements for latch is number one. Delay arising from appellants failure to exercise due diligence. That's clearly not this and two presidents to the appellate is resulting from the delay that is prejudice to the secretary of State, the governor and so forth, but that's clearly not the case..
Wisconsin recount confirms Biden's win over Trump
"Wisconsin's two largest counties completed ballot recounts today, confirming President elect Joe Biden's win by some 20,000 votes there, and Sarah Schneider of member station W. E s a reports Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has thrown out a lawsuit that sought to declare millions of mail in ballots in the state unconstitutional. Republican Congressman Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell, a Republican who led an unsuccessful bid to unseat US representative Connor Lamb were among the plaintiffs. The suit cited issues with law enacted a year ago that let Pennsylvanians vote by mail without an excuse. The state Supreme Court dismissed the case because they say the suit wasn't filed in a timely manner. Days ago, the Republican State Court judge handling the case agreed to halt further certification of the vote count. Governor Tom Wolfe and Secretary of State Kathy Book far appealed to the state Supreme Court, saying the suit could interfere with the state's ceding its electors
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Sean Parnell's Request To Declare Mail-In Voting Unconstitutional In State
"Court is tossed out an election case over the Keystone States mail in ballot. Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the lawsuit looking to overturn the 2019 law regarding mail in ballots. Pennsylvania GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell was one of the plaintiffs. Now many in the media are portraying this says Hey, you know, Sean Sean, as a plaintiff in this lawsuit wants to throw out 2.5 million mail in votes. No, that's not the case that we're trying to make. Case that we're trying to make is that unconstitutional election laws this in franchise, all P a voters. Are now recently lost his election bid against the incumbent representative Connor Lamb. Congress
Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses another election case brought by Republicans
"Court striking down a Republican lawsuit to toss out more than two million mail in ballots. Speech justices unanimously dismissing the case led by GOP Congressman Mike Kelly, in a concurring statement, Justice David West writing They have failed to allege that even a single mail in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted. At least
Pennsylvania high court nixes mail-in ballot challenge
"Of losses in court for Republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump grew again. Last night, Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed another lawsuit that tried to invalidate absentee voting. Pennsylvania's highest court is now clear the way to certify that states a result. Last remaining legal challenge to the election results in Pennsylvania was squashed by the state's high court, which dismissed request from a top trump ally in Congress to toss every mail ballot cast in the state. Justices unanimously rolled the representative Mike Kelly, miss the window to challenge the state's 2019 law, allowing no excuse mail in voting. But Sean Parnell, one of the suits, other plaintiffs who lost the congressional bid himself. What did that It's not over, and voters should stay tuned correspondent Jack who'd act five of the seven judges also said the lawsuit just came too late. Absentee voting procedures have been established for over a year. They say that would have been the time to complain. They dismissed the claim with prejudice, which means Republicans cannot file another lawsuit about this same issue in Pennsylvania anyway, this decision will make President elect Joe Biden, the winner of that battleground state by an 80,000 vote margin.
Pennsylvania court dismisses lawsuit trying to toss mail ballots
"Trump was on the golf course Saturday Is word came that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had dismissed the case alleging that Malian ballots there were unconstitutional. CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy reports from the White House in Pennsylvania. Unanimous Federal Court ruling rejected the Trump campaign's latest lawsuit there. Trump appointed judge wrote a blistering opinion saying they campaigns claims have no merit voters. Not lawyers. Choose the president. Ballots, not briefs decide Elections. You don't have a lot of time. He's got a lot of evidence. We don't have a lot of time. President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, plans to appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. Loyola Law professor Laurie Levenson says the Pennsylvania High Court's decision is in line with lower court rulings. Court cited the failure of the Trump Lawyers Toe Act with due diligence in such a claim. They had challenged all the mail in voting procedures in the state. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said with lower courts had said, as well that this case was without merit. Should be dismissed and should not be brought again.
Pennsylvania court dismisses lawsuit trying to toss mail ballots
"In a unanimous decision. Pennsylvania Supreme Court's thrown out a lower court's order, preventing the state from certifying dozens of contests on its November 3rd election. Ballot. Justices say the underlying lawsuit was filed months too late. Republican plaintiffs had sought to either throw out the 2.5 million mail in ballots submitted under the law or direct the state's Republican controlled legislature to pick Pennsylvania's presidential
Pennsylvania high court nixes mail-in ballot challenge
"Pennsylvania Supreme Court today, tossing out a court challenge focused on mail in voting. The case was brought by Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Mike Kelly and another Republican candidate for Congress, alleging At the state legislature had not legally passed the measure allowing for universal Mail in voting. Over 30 lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign have been tossed out of court.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses GOP congressman's lawsuit that sought to invalidate mail-in votes
"Pennsylvania Supreme Court is rejecting a long shot lawsuit that sought to toss out all mail in ballots in the state. Congressman Mike Kelly and seven other Republicans filed a complaint and asked the court to let the state Legislature decide who won the state Republicans control the legislature. The court ruled unanimously. The plaintiffs had waited too long to bring their lawsuit challenging a 2019 law that created no excuse mail
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"Real court in Pennsylvania. Yesterday, For example, the Reuters news service put it in these stark terms. It says the Trump campaign quote, asked the judge to declare him the winner in Pennsylvania. Saying the state's Republican controlled legislature should select the electors that will cast votes in the U. S Electoral College system. Unquote in other words, the Republican controlled Legislature. Rather than the vote count. The chose Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by more than 80,000 votes. That came on the same day as a significant loss for the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania Supreme Court State Supreme Court. An NBC news report puts it this way. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out one of the Trump campaign's longest running post election complaints, ruling that officials in Philadelphia did not violate state law by maintaining at least 15 ft of separation between observers and the workers counting ballots. By a vote of 5 to 2, it said. Pennsylvania law requires on Lee that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted, but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables. The Legislature left it up to county election boys to make these decisions. The court said, According to NBC News. There are developments in other states that Trump is trying to flip to, including Wisconsin, Georgia and Michigan. With me now to assess the postelection battle to preserve or flip the results has counted is Rebecca Green, co director of the election law program at the William and Mary Law School. In Virginia. Professor Green. Thanks so much for coming on. Welcome to W N. Y C. Happy to be here. Let's start with Pennsylvania and what looks to me like an existentially challenge to American democracy, asking a federal court judge to declare the entire state result defective. And let the Legislature decide who won the state. Do you understand this filing enough to explain what it's based on? Yes, So there's sort of two aspect to it. The first is calling into question the same. The same thing is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case you just described. So the idea being that observation was insufficient and therefore the votes that were counted when there were no observers should be thrown out. Which is pretty radical concept in the sense that it pits. You know these observers rights against the rights of voters to have their votes counted, so that would be extraordinary. And I think it's AH, long shot claim to say the least. The second argument. Main argument in that case involves uneven battle it curing where some seven registrars allows voters to cure their ballots. If there were mistakes, and others didn't and so that's an equal protection argument where you know you're you're not treating voters like voters Similarly across the state, and my understanding in that instance, is that the number of ballots involved at in that instance are nowhere near enough to Whose outcome in Pennsylvania Interesting. So that lawsuit is in federal court in Pennsylvania. It was the state Supreme Court that threw out the lawsuit about the election observers being kept 15 ft away from the tables. Where the ballots were being read. Does the ruling from State Supreme Court on that detail inform what this federal judge might do or can do on the larger swing for the fences suit to disenfranchise the whole state? Yeah, You know, the obviously the federal court is not bound by anything that the state court necessarily says. And, you know, I can just tell you that it doesn't help the federal claim if the if the State court is not acknowledging that there was a problem with observation Through the Trump campaign's underlying argument. Why would a judge and why would election officials in the first place put observers too far from the tables to read the ballots that they're supposed to be observing? Yes, So it's interesting. The law in Pennsylvania doesn't require that observers be allowed to observe, say, for example, the signature verification or other other processes by looking over the shoulders and kind of, in other words, there's nothing in the written law. That sort of stipulates that observers have to be able to do certain things. It only says that observers must be present in the room. And so that leaves, you know a lot of discretion to election officials who are managing sort of crowd control and prove it concerns and and all kinds of other interests. S. So you know where the law more specific that the requiring, for example, that observers have meaningful access to verify signatures. For example, that would be a different case. But that's not what the Pennsylvania law requires. So if let's say in theory Um they standards of distance varied by county, which I think they do, Um And Somebody wanted to make a claim that look in this county. They let people stand just 3 ft. So they could really see See the ballots that county they let them. They made them stand at least 15 ft, which suggests they might have had something to hide. Could that hold up in court? You know, that's not the argument as I understand it. That the Trump campaign is making doesn't isn't an equal protection argument with respect to observation there. They're just saying that they didn't get close enough to see and the response of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, at least was the law doesn't require you to get close enough to see you so That's okay. I have the same ring tone. Uh, Do you know anything about the record of the federal court judge who's hearing the throw it all out? Claim? Judge Matthew brand like who appointed him or if there's reason to believe he'd be sympathetic to something that extreme I don't know anything about his judicial record. I think he's a Obama appointee from 2012 Aziz. I think I read but but I I don't know anything about his judicial record in terms of whether he's bought on to extreme arguments. Do you know if there's precedent for a ruling like that anywhere in American presidential electoral history? Throwing out the people's votes and giving it to the Legislature to decide. I can tell you definitively that there is no precedent for using an observer complaint to throw out any votes, especially at the scale that's being asked for here..
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Taking Up Challenges To More Than 8,000 Philadelphia Ballots Filed By Trump Campaign
"Court will take up challenges to more than 8000 ballots in Philadelphia. This legal challenge filed by President Trump's campaign, the High court's five member Democratic majority, agreed to take up the case that the city's request And the question of whether state law requires counties to disqualify Malin or or absentee absentee ballots ballots where where a a voter voter didn't didn't write. write. Certain Certain information information in in this this case case involves involves balance balance where where the the voters voters signed signed the the outer outer envelope envelope but but didn't didn't hand hand write write their their name, name, address address or or a a date date on it. The court says the case doesn't involve an accusation of fraud or irregularities to Republican justices dissented. Philadelphia judge upheld the City Election Commission's decision to count the votes over the objections of the Trump campaign either way, the balance involved in too few to overturn the result in Philadelphia. And in Pennsylvania. Joe Biden won the Commonwealth by more than 80,000 votes in Philadelphia had its highest voter turnout since 1984. That's one takeaway from the now completed count of ballots in the city. That announcement coming last night, hours after the Trump campaign was dealt a blow by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. And Rudy
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"For fictitious, not existent or deceased persons. That's the legal language there that were submitted for processing to Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder's office and the California state attorney. He could. Montenegro not his real name could face up to 15 years and eight months and state prison but he won't If convicted as charged, according to prosecutors, then the other guy, Arab follow 34 years old charged with eight counts of voter fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit voter fraud, four counts of procuring an offering false or forged instruments. Along with four misdemeanor counts of interference with the proper transfer of completed affidavit could face a maximum seven year prison term. If convicted as church instead, he'll probably get a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. I'm just I'm just guessing here, so we got got that going for us, but when you see the media They like Toulon easily language and say things well. There are no confirmed cases of widespread, pervasive large scale of votes having been cast On upside. Well, wait a minute to meet those criteria. We're going to need a team of lawyers. And that's the way they like to do. Things is the team of lawyers language because they're weasels. They're just born whistles. They die whistles and their whistles in between. Also yesterday. Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules Trump campaign observers had no right to stand within a specific distance during Philadelphia ballot processing say No. This is a fascinating run because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said sure, yeah, what the Republicans are saying is true. They allowed the observers in where the votes were being counted, but they kept them. 100 FT. Away. So they had to go out and buy binoculars to stand across the room to see if they could see what the Democrats who are counting the votes in Philadelphia we're doing and that's where Joe Biden made his. You know his big move. That's where suddenly the state went from being hundreds of thousands in favor of Trump to hundreds of thousands in favor of Biden, and it's all in Philadelphia Democrat Crooked. Everybody knows it. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 5 to 2 that a Trump campaign ballot processing observer in Philadelphia had no right to stand any particular distance away from the election workers. And it's up to counties to decide where poll watchers can stand now, but I'm not. And I'm not an attorney. I'm not a lawyer, but let me just get this straight. So you're you're in the room. The room is the size of a football field, and they're counting the votes down on the other end zone and you're standing in this end zone and you had to go out and get some binoculars called, you know, Call the husband tell him to bring some binoculars down. So you can try to see what they're doing at a table facing away from you on day. You can't see anything. And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court voted 5 to 2. Well, they're in the room. You know, the law doesn't say you have to be within distance where you can actually see what's happening. Of course, although I'm not a lawyer, that is clearly the intent of the law is that you're in the room to watch it on If they move it to a football stadium sized room of football field sized room and they park you behind a minnow of plastic tarp down on this end, and they're counting the votes down on that and obviously violates the spirit and the intent. Of the law again. I'm not ah, lawyer, a member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but that would seem obvious to any four year old on. I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and guess that we got five to ruling Pennsylvania. I'm gonna have to look at the five judges in this case because this is is the little different. It's a significant loss for President Donald Trump's campaign at a moment in which the legal strategy to block President elect Joe Biden's win and undermine this is a CNN story and undermine the election results, his crumbling and entering its final throes. This is CNN writing this story. The state High Court ruling overturns an earlier decision that the Trump campaign had called a major win even while it affected no actual votes and Pennsylvania..
Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejects complaints about Philadelphia election observations
"Have a quick update about the flurry of lawsuits. The trump team filed over election results in battleground states. You might remember at first court. Order cited with the trump campaign who had argued poll-watchers allowed access in philadelphia. Because they had to stay at least fifteen feet away from vote counters so the judge ordered they could move up to six feet away instead. Well not anymore. The pennsylvania supreme court just reversed that lower court's decision and ruled pennsylvania. Law gives local officials leeway to decide the rules themselves in philadelphia. Local board said it made the rules to protect the security and privacy of ballots will also keeping employees safe during a pandemic trump's personal attorney rudy. Giuliani argues it. Was all an attempt to cover up voter fraud though against election officials. Say there's no proof of that either way. It doesn't impact the results of the election.
Trump campaign loses Pennsylvania Supreme Court case on Philadelphia vote count observers
"Boats there. Despite Trump campaign arguments to the contrary, Pennsylvania's highest court said election officials did not act contrary to law in the way they allowed observers to watch the canvassing. The court said there are simply no requirements that say how close the observers need to be placed to watch the process. Even judges with the center Opinions called it misguided to think valid ballots would be disregarded based on isolated procedural irregularities. ABC
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on NewsRadio WIOD
"We'll go with writers for the sake of the interesting aspect. Is the Bidens gonna lose? And the Supreme Court and they know it for justice is already said that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cannot adjust voting rules and they can't focus. The state Legislature is the only body Empowered. To change voting rules. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court can't do it. All they can do is is way in on efforts that have been made, but they cannot do it themselves. We got a new justice Justice Bharat And she says that she's there to apply the rules in the Constitution, Okay? One of that, that she does if she does, and if the Supreme Court takes a case if it goes there and if you remove the after 8 p.m. ballots Then Biden loses those 20. This guy says Biden loses Pennsylvania. If you take away the ballots that Alito wants set aside that anything after eight o'clock an election night is illegal. Pennsylvania Supreme Court said No, It's not. We're gonna allow him. The point is, they can't make that rules change. Another full quote. Excuse me. We have. Bloggers with lots of time on their hands are going through voter rolls, and they're showing that Person after person who voted in a swing state also fought in the Civil War may be fought in the war of 18 12. It was funny at first, all these dead people voting. But then the overwhelming number of dead voters goes beyond humor, Another rubbing our faces in it, he says. I think Donald J. Trump has to swing one state. Not only is this thing not over the Biden team must be sweating bullets. This is all his opinion, voter fraud and a scale seemed like a really cool idea until Trump went to the mattresses now that he's fighting it out. One voter in a time with the Supreme Court likely to create the starting point it Biden to 70. Biden has everything to lose no more truckloads of votes coming in so every ballot Trump's team eliminates gets President Elect Biden one step closer to former VP Biden who lives in a basement, Okay, so this is just a sample of some of the stuff that's out there. People are reading it. They're getting revved up and excited. I don't blame you. But the real process is going to take some time. Eliminating Biden ballot is going to take time. It's not gonna happen just because somebody says they saw something. I'm not I'm not trying to be critical or marking of anybody. Don't don't misunderstand. Here's another one. Top attorney Lin Wood, This guy's a First Amendment lawyer. Free speech. Listen. Guy defended the Covington kids. And got.
Attorney General Bill Barr authorizes investigation into voting irregularities
"Attorney general Bar is telling his counterparts on the state level to go after what he calls substantial claims of voting and vote counting irregularities, ABC Sandy Field says that's if they confined them. The attorney general's memo says the Justice Department does not believe there was widespread voting fraud but gives US attorneys the okay to investigate if they find enough evidence. So far, the president's campaign has provided little or no proof to back Those claims and cords have thrown out a number of cases. The bar memo emphasising that prosecutors should not quote pursue speculative, fanciful or Farfetch claim. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a claim by the Trump campaign regarding access given to election
Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear appeal over granting Trump campaign closer access to count
"Of the legal challenges targeting Pennsylvania. The lone case the Supreme Court is already considering is taking shape. Is up to deciding whether the Commonwealth's highest court overstepped when it allowed the mail in ballot deadline to be extended. Is K y W is Christian Joe Hanson looks into the chances it may be heard by the high court. The Supreme Court may have some interest is Justice Samuel Alito did order for mail in ballots, which came in after election date to be separated. But some counties have reported those segregated balance makeup as few as 1/5 of a percentage of the total number of votes. It may not be worth it for the high court to take on because the margin of victory is too big. Kermit Roosevelt is a constitutional law professor with the University of Pennsylvania and great great grandson to the top. Me six President Theodore Roosevelt. I think the Supreme Court would not want to spend institutional capital and appeared political in the way that a partisan decision would when it's not actually getting any benefit. A group of Republican attorneys general from the other states have urged the high court to take the case like Oklahoma's A G MIC hunter. The actions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are one of the most breathtaking abuses of judicial authority for Roosevelt says even with a conservative court, it may not go trumps way. Trump seems to think that he has a point. People who owe him and we'll do him favours. I certainly hope and I strongly doubt that any of the justices think about it in that transaction away,
GOP-led states back Trump’s legal drive to challenge election
"President trump has yet to concede the election but the trump campaign has already announced a number of legal challenges to the results in states like pennsylvania georgia michigan arizona nevada and north carolina. But the big question is whether these are a last ditch effort by the president to remain relevant or whether they actually have legal merit. And that's what my next guest deny are going to discuss. marc joseph. Stern is a staff writer for slate and he covers the courts and the law mark. Welcome back to the show. Thanks so much for having me back on so judges in georgia. Michigan and nevada have already dismissed lawsuits filed by the trump campaign. What were the legal grounds that judges had for dismissing those lawsuits. So most of these lawsuits are really about process. Not about substance. So the trump campaign has repeatedly argued across several states. That legal observers specifically republican legal observers. Were not allowed to witness the top relation process closely enough that they couldn't get close enough to make sure there was no funny business going on. That doesn't seem to be true. These seem to be fabricated claims designed to kind of throw a wrench in the vote in process Rather than winning any extra votes for trump and the reason judges have thrown them out is because they don't have much merits the trump campaign can say whatever it wants on twitter but when it gets into court and it's lawyers are under oath. They have to speak the truth and the truth is there just isn't any mischief going on behind the scenes in any of these states. Well let's talk a little bit about pennsylvania because they had been dealing with some legal issues even before the election started. Where does that stand now. Mark yes so. The pennsylvania case is the strongest one for the trump campaign by far so pennsylvania. Law says that all ballots have to be received by november third but the pennsylvania supreme court extended the grace period to november sixth for ballots that were mailed by election day. The trump campaign has fought that very hard and four supreme court justices have already said they would basically like to throw out those ballots so the trump campaign has been sort of reminding the supreme court. Hey we've got these late ballots. The counties are segregating gum in not including them in the vote. Count so you know. They have not contributed to joe. Biden's victory there so far but right now it doesn't look like there are nearly enough of these late arriving ballots to change the outcome of the election to make any of this litigation worth it's it's in the thousands perhaps while joe biden's is in the tens of thousands and so even if the supreme court came in and said we've got a throughout every ballot that arrived in pennsylvania after november third. It would not give trump that state and it would not change the outcome of this election. Another state that the trump campaign has its eyes on is wisconsin. They've already said that they would ask for a recount there. Where does that stand and will they be asking for a recount and any other states so it looks like there will be a recount in wisconsin. But the reality is that recounts usually only change a few hundred votes at most. If you have a super thin margin you know a few dozen. Or if you hundred votes separating the winner and the loser then recounts can be a nail biter but right now biden ahead twenty thousand votes. It doesn't look like it's going to change anything you know after jill stein paid for a recount in two thousand sixteen. Donald trump ended up getting a few more hundred votes than the initial counted found. So that will happen but it probably won't change anything. i believe. The trump campaign will seek recount in georgia as well possibly arizona and nevada though. It's too soon to tell but again as thin as those margins are we're talking in the thousands or tens of thousands not in the hundreds so they don't seem likely to change anything
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"At five, now back to the best of the Jim Bohannon show. We're joined by former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy, whose new book Out is titled It doesn't Hurt to ask. We'll talk about that in a moment, but of course we must lead off. By asking you a bit about where we stand now in this, not yet decided election your thoughts. Yeah. I mean, my initial fall. It is our our country can split an atom. Uh, we can build the most amazing things we can produce Halle Berry, but we can't count votes in a 48 hour time period. I mean, I know it's frustrating. You know? Each state gets to decide its own state laws. So there's a difference between being unlawful and being irresponsible and and and I do think The better argument for responsibility. Isto have some paradigm, some scheme where we're not two days into it and still have hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count. So that said I'm off. I'm a fax guy. Amon evidence guy heard the allegations, but they've got to be proven on. There's a difference between mistakes, errors, omissions and fraud. And You know if you're going to allege systemic, widespread fall fraud, That's a really big allegation, and there has to be correspondingly high amount of evidence to support it. What about the charges that have been made that you know a number of instances, Republican observers to the vote county process have been denied close access. No, no, no, no. I mean, I view that kind of you in a couple of different ways were the rules governing the elections where they lawful where they where they constitutional and were they enacted by By the right group. And what I mean by that is the legislative a legislative body. Not a not a court, which is what the Constitution provides. General won. What are the rules? Are they being followed? Are they being applied equally? And what you referenced? Kind of falls in that are they being applied equally? If you don't have a meaningful access to the vote count, um, you know, trying to be fair about it. You do want to save Gord. Um, the confidentiality and anonymity of individual voters. So I understand being careful about any identifying information, but I can't imagine what they would be on the ballot. So there's not a name. There's not Ah, driver's license. No, we're not a so security numbers, so be cautious with identifying information because people vote for is private and no one's business. That said, Unless you have a bionic eye you can't see from 25 yards away. So I think the courts are coming down least one I've heard of in the last couple hours are coming down on the side of you have to allow meaningful acid access so you can determine whether or not the rules being applied fairly and equally Here's one thing in the Constitution Article one section for the Times and The Times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature. There of it goes on to add, but the Congress made any time by law, make or alter such regulations. Except as to the places of choosing senators does not say anywhere that the state Supreme Court gets involved, right. And that was the argument that you know That that the Pennsylvania you know how long Khun ballots be accepted that they tried to get that before the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court deadlocked 4 to 4. Of course, I think it was a Lido, Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote. You know, they're They're position was exactly what you just laid out that the Constitution says. Legislatures for a reason. It doesn't say the Supreme Court and if members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court want to get involved, there is a perfect way of looking at right. We've known for 150 years that Election day was going to be Tuesday. That's how long that statue has been on the books. 150 years is how long we've know that And the pandemics been going on since March. Right, so the Pennsylvania Legislature has had plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to allow for balance received. Postmarked by election but received thereafter be to be counted and they and they never availed themselves of that opportunity. In fact, they said, explicitly, no. So who's the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? Undo or override with the Legislature's done at the Supreme that the U. S. Supreme Court should have said so. But they for some reason, I don't understand. They took a pass on what is the the thing about the U. S Supreme Court failing to take on certain hot potatoes? I'm really afraid they're gonna lose the New Hampshire primary. Oh, wait a minute. That's right. Supreme Court members don't have to run in primaries or any other election. We give them life tenure for, you know, Actually, the Constitution says, for the period of good behavior, But we have interpreted that to be four life. My guess if I were trying to look at it in the light, most favorable to them, My guess is they don't want to be the the arbiter of who wins presidential elections. They don't want to get involved. And what they perceive to be a little cool matters. They would like it to be worked out before he gets to them. But that's really about the only societal referee. We have left anymore. Well, it is and something else that they might have thought about. They could have tackled this case some time ago, when it would only have been a case of the U. S Supreme Court straightening out and clarifying the rules of the game. By not acting then they're now likely to have this dump squarely in their labs when they will be perceived, whether they like it or not, as picking the next president. In other words, if they wind up being in that situation, they have no one to blame but themselves. That is true. If they were on the call with us, they would probably say, although And you know, I don't know this to be a fact haven't pulled the Nevada voting regulations or Arizona or Georgia. If one of those legislative body said Look, if it's postmarked by election night, you can count for three days or for seven days to keep him on the theological college. The electors don't meet until December. 40 Which is why I began with the responsibility argument. I mean, it is irresponsible for any state I get you have the power to do it. It is irresponsible to lead the rest of the nation wondering who the president's going to be. What do you think is a good idea to vote smudged postmarked ballots for for two weeks. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying it's irresponsible for you to allow that. Having noted all that we've just said the track record of people challenging initial election outcomes either being through recounts or through lawsuits that the track record of those challenging is not very strong. Uh, inches benches inches, Not yours. And Miles Thie on Lee..
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KDOW
"Going dispute with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Preelection ruling to grant a three day extension to allow balance to be received. In his new order. Justice Alito suggested annoyance he didn't learn until Friday, the state's top election official had issued updated guidance November 1st, telling electoral boards to count the late arriving ballots as soon as possible, keeping the tally separate. Potential constitutional issue would be the question whether the state's high court had the legal power in the first place to grant the extension, overruling the state's legislature. A practical question is the numerical consequence these ballots have on the state's overall vote. Count George Burns on the reporting. Speaking in Delaware, former vice President Joe Biden says it's clear that he's going to win the race. Just look what has happened since yesterday. 24 hours we're behind in Georgia. Our head. We're gonna win that state 24 hours ago. We're behind offensive alien and we are going to win Pennsylvania. Another senior member of the Trump White House, has contractor covert 19. This time, it's the president's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Officials confirm that Meadows tested positive for the Corona virus as the country sets daily records for confirmed cases in the pandemic. He's the latest in a long list of White House and administration officials who have been diagnosed with the virus. Meadows traveled with Mr Trump in the run up to Election Day. And last appeared in public early Wednesday morning without a mask when the president first spoke after the election, Greg Clugston Washington In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Dancy Pelosi announced her intent to run for another two years as speaker of the House. Or in the stories a townhall dot com My name.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KMOX News Radio 1120
"You're talking about a situation where you've got Kobe related issues, And that's the reason that the North Carolina for example, they're extending they were extending their dead by nine days. Now Pennsylvania three days, So I guess every case is governed by its own facts. For example, in the state of North Carolina, there were exigent circumstances three years ago because of Hurricane And so that state decided that they were going to accept those ballots later on and count those ballots later on, so Cute In that context, You know, it's it's kind of state control. Now, if you want a federal mandate on it Then what's gonna have to happen is if you get something, Let's take out a covert. If you get something like a hurricane, if you get a hurricane in Florida, for example. Well, how are we going to address is that going to be an act of Congress are going to have a special election type committee. That's going to make the decision that for the state of Florida because they have issues related to hurricane their houses, air knocked down you know the roof servicing or whatever. They can't vote That makes it a little more problematic. If you're talking about, uh, country by as opposed to statewide, let's say that it all comes down to Pennsylvania and there definitely will be a lawsuit. Does this have to work its way through the system and the Pennsylvania pellet chords and then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or can the Supreme Court United States just take it? Yeah, I think this came Court of the United States. We'll just take it. I think that's what happened with the hanging Chad down in Florida, and I don't recall whether it worked its way up the system. But time is of the essence in all these things, So I think that what occurred is it will go directly back to the Republicans will again. Seek to kind of file a restraining type border, which is what they tried to do in Pennsylvania before and they rejected it. And then they'll they'll seek to have the Supreme Court for one of time make make the decision because otherwise you're gonna have this election hanging in the balance for for a long time. He has to work its way up the court system. You know how slow that it and just to make sense of this? The Republicans think the trump campaign thinks rightfully or wrongfully that most of these Malin will be Biden votes, Correct. Yeah, well, yeah, but you don't. I mean, you don't know that. And in Pennsylvania's well, they've They've already knocked out that same interestingly, that same state court opinion where they granted the extension also knocked out what they called the naked balance. And and that's a ballot where you have to put your vote. You vote for the person that you want to put it in an envelope. You steal that envelope, and then you put it inside another envelope. Where you signed signed your name, So they compare your signature and they said no for those people that didn't put it into that separate envelope, the secret ballot envelope. Ah, 100 Plus 1000 votes They've already tossed out. I don't know what? I don't know where those votes are Trump votes. I don't know whether they're Biden votes. I want Northern Mickey Mouse. I don't know, but Those ballots may come into the mix as well. Supreme Court decides to hear this three day extension and whether or not those those get knocked out, But here here's a story if you're going to file Look if you're silly enough You put that in the mail yesterday or the day before, then Shame on you like you can take it, Take it to a box and put it in the box for Heaven's like four. Go to the polls and stand in line goes polls because if you you know you delayed and if you can't figure out how to put a secret following the directions with the secrets vote into a separate envelope inside another envelope, then you're probably too stupid to vote. Any house. Probably she shouldn't be counted. Traffic.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KYW Newsradio 1060
"Heading to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. We'll explain. 12 02. Now it's traffic and weather on the tubes we bring in Pete in Arado. A fat. Uh, right now we do have a bit of a delay on the westbound schedule Expressway. Let's start there. It's all due to construction, which is running from right around. University of the 30th is balking that left lane and that's causing a Retty. Significant delay as you make your way past university towards the tail and the back instructions to just give yourself a couple of extra minutes. Also in 76. We have some good news on a couple of accidents earlier on approaching the boulevard, we had a crash on the shoulder that's been totally cleared from the roadway. And had an accident after City Avenue on Ahh, 76 West in the right lane. That's been clear out of the way as well. So only dealing with this big delay due to construction on the westbound side of the Scougall eastbound 76, looking good from King of pressure on down the South Philly. Not seeing much of an issue in the Via Fit Expressway, 6 76 on a quick check of 95 right now, through Delaware County, generally in both directions between the Delaware State line on the Commodore Barry Bridge. We've got roadwork, blocking two lanes North bound. It's a pretty small the leg. 5 to 10 minutes. Self bound still giving us 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes away as you make your way from Commodore Barry Bridge on down towards the talent that construction so again on 95 through Delaware County, Watch out for just general slowing due to this roadwork, blue 4 76 looks pretty good Pennsylvania Turnpike. Not seeing much of a backup. We do have some road work to watch out for on for 22 westbound between Limerick and Santa Toga. There is construction taking on the lane there on on the Pennsylvania Turnpike eastbound nearing mid County two right lanes or shut down for a construction as well. One bridge, not here. The Delaware Memorial Bridge heading into New Jersey It's reduced to one lane for construction. South Jersey Roads are pretty quiet, for the most part and mass transit is running our clothes to schedule your next report in less than 10 minutes on Pete and around over the cable Bu 24 hour traffic center. Now It's your five day forecast with NBC 11th alert meteorologist Steve Overnight We will see thickening clouds. It's a mild night with Lou temperatures.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KYW Newsradio 1060
"Very nice to have you all here are focused is voting at so, Patrick, I want to start with you. I know. Committee of 70 Focus on voter education. How is that going in the middle of a pandemic is challenging is challenging and their number reasons for that, and one is that there are a number of significant areas of uncertainty. I mean, there's there's active litigation right now. I'm gonna let them talk about that, and we're still waiting to see if the Legislature will agree on and on any final set of change the election code. Fortunately in their hands and stop pointing, made available for some counties, you filled off. You landed a $10 million grant several weeks ago help provide equipment and staffing. But there he's really on the Now point of uncertainty for this election work, and then there's a lot of noise. The president is making this more difficult to talk about their also reasonable questions. Get out the melon voting process, which is relatively new like this. We slow news oni systems that something we're doing our best to kind of cut through that and assure folks that they do have every opportunity to cast a ballot. And we are encouraging people to vote by mail they possibly can. Because we want to minimize the number of people go out there at point places on Election Day. I want to bring Ben in here. I know you guys are actively involved in litigation, Ben and so where this Hey and multiple litigations. Where does this stand? So there's a lot of litigation underway right now pose in federal and state court. I think the most important case right now is the one that's in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In that case touches on a few issues that will be a great significance and November's election. One of them is about drop boxes. This is the first time in a presidential election When Pennsylvania has vote by mail available is an option to any voter who chooses to use it during the primary. A lot of counties, including Philadelphia, offered drop boxes to make it easier for voters to return their ballots and to make sure they got back on time to be counted their men's and legal challenges whether drop boxes are permitted or not. And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is going to resolve that question. I hope I am involved in this litigation and we taken a position on behalf of common cause. Pennsylvania voters. Pennsylvania Black leather on power Project Make Road Pennsylvania that drop boxes are permissible. They are secure, and they are a good option. Yeah, and I want to bring Todd in here, Tiger Republican. But you are actually four drop boxes, although I know the security of job boxes has been big. Part of litigation that has been brought by Republicans. Absolutely What it really does think we're using the word drop back as parts of just being able to put a box anywhere. Ultimately, we all have the same goal in mind. We just want to secure election where folks are getting their ability to vote and not being stymied on how they can go. I know here in Bucks County the this the concept of the three drop boxes are actually the same as what this legislation will do. It's just you're going to be able to either fail in your ballot. Top it off with the corn hat was dropping out of the board of elections or one of their satellites, which for us would be the three drop boxes in Bucks, County, Upper middle and lower box or you can even actually take your mail in ballots. Should you decide you want to go to the polls? And you can. You can turn it in there. And I think the issue of security has been a big one. Can you articulate on what? The big security issues that you heard about just firsthand? I have I have a son who's in college. He wanted to go somewhere when they exit before you go. You got to drop your ballot Courthouse. What's supposed to happen? Is there supposed to be Something about that's one of the time to ensure that one person one ballot, he went there. There was the about box was outside the building. There was someone inside looking out, but he could have dropped 10 or 20 balance, and he said himself. This is the stuff we're trying to avoid. We want to do it properly as it's supposed to be done and just have someone there to ensure that we're 111 vote. One ballot, one person and I want to bring you in here. Don't know how How do you think this issue of voting has it become politicized? It has been in both sides has jumped on the opportunity. You advocate their points and unfortunately is actually confusing the voters in this uncertain time, and I think that is doing a disservice to the whole process because while we talk about litigation while we talk about the uncertainty of the security process, we're still not securing another voter participation. So when we talk about politicizing the process, we're also ostracised and a lot of the disenfranchised people. Even further. People are concerned about Wilma Valley. Get to where it's going to go. What if I go in person? Could I be Risking my hell going there, so there's lots of concerns and how do you protect voters and ensure a good, robust turnout? This very valid in? A lot of those concerns are valid. So one of the things we've done in conjunction with our coalition partners is put out the correct information explained to them why a lot of this is occurring in there a lot of it, doing apartments with the lack of infrastructure preparation and that out of the malicious intent from either party we even as advocates have concerns. We're constantly working at and that's one of the things that I think, give them security that their concerns aren't isolated ones and enough want her. I want to bring Abu Andy. I mean, the millennial block could be one of the largest voting block in the country. Millennials action is specifically focused on that. What a young voters thinking you're probably one of the toughest jobs because you know, our focus is not just get towards millions. Just get towards urban black millennials. You know millions who are appears who grew up in the city of Philadelphia. Where are their life? Seen Mayor after Mayor Administration of administration kind of, you know, sitting back and watching the 3 60 of poverty just continue in the city. One thing we're doing on the ground, just educating, you know folks to buy for their ballot early or to even get prepared to go stand in a long line. If you prepare to bowl in tow, wear a mask. It's also about you're just educate them on our history. You know, when it comes to voting on most black people, we can't ignore the struggle. It's about really just, you know, bridging that gap and educating them on the importance of this. And also showing that you know how elections benefit? No, the state I think in 2015 millions in action, you know, we helped support three Democratic Supreme Court justices that turned the whole entire, you know, from Republican control Supreme Court to a Democratic control Supreme Court, which handled the case of redistricting, and now we'll be listening to this litigation. I think those are important, So that's kind of some the things that we're trying to, you know, educate, you know, to our peers, you know, and let you know that Listen, this is what a vote equals two and then I want to bring you back in this litigation That's happy. Eating how much of it should average voters be paying attention to it? And one of the key issues that you think will be what the judge decides on. So the litigation is really about what happens to people who, you know, overdo early and it's the last minute somebody wants to vote by mail, for example, you know, will they have to mail in their ballot using a postal system, which has had a lot of slowdowns during Corona virus, or will they have the option of using drop boxes?.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Go forward with a Bill that we think that is important at will extended time period for burst filing civil action on Talib us from twelve years up to thirty two years, which is getting crease eliminate stocks limitations for criminal prosecution, which really puts on par with only murder in Pennsylvania, murdered related crimes. So we take this very seriously. We're going to look to to put. We've We put. put together a very important Bill eighteen months ago. We're certainly open to other ideas as well, and hopefully we can get to a Bill that the house will finally move and and we can get these reforms into place. So concern will be based on, you know what? Good public policy not Catholic church of concerned about it and correct me if I'm wrong. So I want to be sure have this right? Does the Senate Bill contained provisions that would allow the cases to be revived where the statute of limitations has expired. It does not from civil point of view, does not or criminal criminal US constitution of votes that, but we have Romney's clause in our constitution and we, this is something thoroughly vetted through our tradition committee process through hearings. Bring a constitutional scholars on this issue. Couple of states have been able to move forward with the revert or don't have a remedies clause in their constitution. And so we believe the best path forward on that is to do a concert limit. And and certainly something I think that we can be supportive of that change that. But as long as we have a remedies clause, it prevents us constitutionally from doing the river regarding the Pennsylvania state constitution, not the US. Okay. Representative rosy if I may, this is okay to say, but you're you yourself survivor of clergy, sex abuse. Is that right? All right. So so do you think that this is a moment where Pennsylvania can take concrete and meaningful steps forward to put these structural changes in place to protect people in the future? I really do. I, you know, I believe that we, what we need is the two year window to absolute expose these predators out there. The Pennsylvania supreme court has never ruled on this issue. We may have a remedies clause, but the Pennsylvania, the black robes in this state has never ruled whether a statute of limitation can be retroactive and a statue limitation is a procedural change, not a substance chains and according to court cases in Pennsylvania, that would be constitutional. So we have to pass it because it is good public policy like this enter said, and then we need to let the black robes make this decision in Pennsylvania because we know there's so many other predators out there. I mean, they just arrested a pre the doctor bardo who abusing a lot of kids when the law passed in Delaware. They expose other physicians who were abusing kids. This isn't just a Catholic clergy problem. This is to expose all predators. I don't care if you're Jerry Sandusky. I have victims from Penn State from senators hometown that are waiting to file a civil lawsuit because Penn State won't deal with them. We must get this passed for all victims in this Commonwealth. I heard Senator Cormon correctly. He was saying that perhaps this time to make changes to the Pennsylvania state constitution. Absolutely. And that's something that we look at, but we need to take decisive action now for these victims. I mean, just out of the the church's own records, the dented a thousand victims, the attorney general's office. I think they're up almost five hundred new victims or tips coming into their office. We know that there's a ton of predatory priests out there. They're still living in neighborhoods. They're still looking for their next victims. If we don't do this legislature and do the right thing, the why even come the Harrisburg..
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KYW Newsradio 1060
"The pennsylvania supreme court blocked a grand jury report detailing sexual abuse by catholic priests in six of the eight diocese in the commonwealth it is now released an opinion supporting that order philadelphia's not among them because of a previous priest abuse grand jury report kyw's steve tawa reports in its original four sentence order the supreme court did not disclose its reasons nor did it identify the petitioners who moved to block the more than eight hundred page grand jury report now in a five page opinion by the court justices right many individuals lodge challenges but they remain unnamed the court points out most if not all of the petitioners allege that they are named or identified it in a way that unconstitutionally infringes on the right to reputation and denies them due process bishops from all six diocese allentown erie greensburg harrisburg pittsburgh and scranton have agreed to support the release of the findings fast moving wildfire is out of control in northern california six hundred structures remain threatened twelve homes already torched by the ponti fire which exploded two eighty two hundred acres or thirteen square miles assistant fire marshal paulo swirling winds push the fire back towards the three thousand resident community of spring valley which was post to be evacuated when the fire did start burning in and around homes a lot of the residents chosen not evacuate originally opted to then try and leave at the last minute the issue that that created was that there was a lot of fire engines that were moved into the neighborhoods to protect the structures and those residents clinton leave whether should work in the firefighters favor with temperatures dropping and humidity back all for cbs news san francisco that's the broadcast center in spring garden scattered clouds going to sixty one degrees overnight on tuesday it'll be sunny and nice with i've eighty one wednesday increasing clouds showers and thunderstorms developing with a high of eighty two degrees run for research the cancer research at a steady.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on KYW Newsradio 1060
"In frankfurt and florence jakup is heading back to poland with fond memories my dreams come to america and i'm so grateful that people philadelphia for the incredible hospitality at city hall pat loeb kyw newsradio congressman ryan costello's name will not be on the pennsylvania primary valid come this spring costello announced over the weekend that he will not seek reelection but he didn't say whether or not either allow his name to stay on the ballot if his name did stay on the ballot and he won the primary party leaders would have handpicked a replacement to face democrat chrissy houlahan in the fall barring an unlikely writing campaign or a last minute challenge to his petitions republican greg mcaulay will be the gop candidate for that congressional seat castillo says he made the decision not to seek reelection because of the caustic atmosphere now in washington dc also because of the new congressional districts were drawn up on the pennsylvania supreme court news time is one twenty two it's time for traffic and transit on the twos paul good news the eastbound platte bridge on the downside we had a crash taking out a few lanes but it has been cleared so no delays on the platte at this time of the morning in either direction other area bridges are checking out okay overnight construction out on the burlington bristol bridge was cancelled due to the weather we are having some light rainfall across parts of the region so do take extra time on your commute overnight construction on the schuylkill expressway it's in both directions in the right lane between six seventy six and south street and then further west from gladwin to the contra how can curve right lincoln structure all of that in place until around five o'clock this morning not on the northeast extension if you're heading north right after midcounty do on the right lane roadwork that will also less than celebrate five on the.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"The court to actually hear the caves just to be clear on that the pennsylvania supreme court in a couple of decisions said that this congressional voting map violated the state constitution because it was gerrymandered in a way that it gave republicans an unfair advantage the cal the pennsylvania supreme court eventually drew its own map and right now it looks like that's going apply apply for this fall election that's a much more democratic friendly map and usually the us supreme court won't second guess a state court win it's interpreting his own constitution but in this case republicans tried to get the supreme court to block that lower court decision put in place the old map on the grounds that it violated the us constitution and in particular a clause in the us constitution that it's the legislature that gets to draw the congressional districts republicans argued the court was surfing that role the supreme court without anybody defending said that is not something we we want to th that that argument is not enough to let us a jump in here and and reinstate the old map let's forget the politics of it republican versus democrat and just look at that argument and see if it can be overlaid onto other cases because we're hearing a lot about gerrymandering especially as november approaches in different districts across the country is this another one of those cases that could apply it is one of those cases but it's different so the supreme court has a couple of gerrymandering cases one that will be argued in next week and we're talking here about partisan gerrymandering not racial gerrymandering but those cases are all about challenges based on the us constitution the pennsylvania case was different and this might be why the pennsylvania case succeeded because the challenges there are the pennsylvania supreme court there said that these gerrymander districts are a violation of our state constitution so it's possible that pennsylvania will be the.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Stay application ain't nobody was asking the court to actually hear the case just to be clear on that the pennsylvania supreme court in a couple of decisions said that this congressional voting map violated the state constitution because it was gerrymandered in a way that it gave republicans an unfair advantage the cal the pennsylvania supreme court eventually druids own map and right now it looks like that's gonna apply apply for this fall election that's a much more democratic friendly map and usually the us supreme court won't second guess a state court win it's interpreting its own constitution but in this case republicans tried to get the supreme court to block that lower court decision put in place the old map on the grounds that it violated the us constitution and in particular a clause in the constitution that said it's the legislature that gets to draw the congressional districts republicans argued the court was serving that role the supreme court without anybody dissenting said that is not something we want to that that argument is not enough to let us a jump in here and and reinstate the old map let's forget the politics of it republican versus democrat and just look at that argument and see if it can be overlaid onto other cases because we're hearing a lot about gerrymandering especially as november approaches in different districts across the country is this another one of those cases that could apply it is one of those cases but it's different so the supreme court has a couple of gerrymandering cases one that will be argued next week and we're talking here about partisan gerrymandering not racial gerrymandering but those cases are all about challenges based on the us constitution the pennsylvania case was different and this might be why the pennsylvania case succeeded because the challenges there are are the pennsylvania supreme court there said that these gerrymander districts are violation of our state constitution so it's possible that pennsylvania will be the.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Court's decision to not take up this case involving the new congressional voting map in pennsylvania what happened there so this was actually just a stay application ain't nobody was asking the court to actually hear the case just to be clear on that the pennsylvania supreme court in a couple of decisions said that this congressional voting map violated the state constitution because it was gerrymandered in a way that it gave republicans and unfair advantage the cal the pennsylvania supreme court eventually drew its own map and right now it looks like that's gonna ply apply for this fall election that's a much more democratic friendly map and usually the us supreme court won't second guess a state court win it's interpreting its own constitution but in this case republicans tried to get the supreme court to block that lower court decision put in place the old map on the grounds that it violated the us constitution and in particular are causing the us constitution that it's the legislature that gets to draw the congressional districts republicans argued the court was surfing that role the supreme court without anybody defending said that is not something we we want to that that argument is not enough to let us a jump in here and and reinstate the old map let's forget the politics of it republican versus democrat and just look at that argument and see if it can be overlaid onto other cases because we're hearing a lot about gerrymandering especially as november approaches in different districts across the country is this another one of those cases that could apply it is one of those cases but it's different so the supreme court has a couple of gerrymandering cases one that will be argued next week and we're talking here about partisan gerrymandering not racial gerrymandering but those cases are all about challenges based on the us constitution the pennsylvania case was different and this might be why the pennsylvania case succeeded because the challenges there are the pennsylvania supreme court there said that these gerrymander districts are a violation of our state constitution so it's possible that pennsylvania will be the.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on Talk Radio WPHT 1210
"Pennsylvania supreme court said the congressional districts in pennsylvania gerrymandered unconstitutional and they've ordered new maps to be drawn the governor tom wolf has already rejected the republican maps now it's possible that the state supreme court could make the new maps which could really are republicans chances in 2018 unfortunately for congress well you know what i what i know about the issue again it's it's it's a little complex it's simple but it's complex look listen the bottom line is that if the supreme court really wanted to fix what they perceived to be a problem they would have given us more time to draw new maps or lease issues there they're full opinions sooner and and i think the house uh house and senate leadership did a good job with a maps based on the short amount of time they have and hopefully governor wolf comes to the table and shops tried to use that sexual curry favour with national uh liberal interest groups and we can work something out but if the governor works moves forward without working with a legislature as he has indicated he he he might do he very possibly might be trampling on the pennsylvania constitution now last friday uh democrat leaders top in derby were complaining that the process of drawing a new map must involve the full lasers legislature and i i think we all agree with that so you know governor walker should work with us on this issue not he tire some out expert were professor from outside of the state so i guess you know this will this will play out as it plays out yeah and so the idea of potential court challenges are not off the table you're saying then i i you know i'm not in a position to uh you know to to speak for the senate uh with the legislature but yeah i think there's it looks with some the the supreme court was pretty bold europe pennsylvania uh but yeah i i.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on Pod Save the People
"Pennsylvania supreme court who said that the that the map was gerrymandered insight this crazy thing and you know i think about this because you see that their rules in place that there is they're supposed to be a system of checks and balances of that supposedly a barack of the way we've configured our democracy supreme court in pennsylvania said that this map was gerrymandered in wasn't fair in which you find is a legislator pushing to get rid of all the judges on the court so that he can push through a map the makes no sense and unlike these are the things that you don't even realize what happened until you look up and you're like wow i didn't euro here we go this is how we got to a really crazy politics but i wanted to bring a here because i was shocked when i read it but they also made me more mindful that we got a like pay attention to even the things that we thought were going to be okay yeah this reminds me of what a mitch mcconnell and the republicans did with gorsuch rate they change the composition of the supreme court right so we talk about gerrymandering in pennsylvania like luckily this was a state supreme court decision which is based on the state constitution in pennsylvania otherwise it would be more likely for the supreme court to too you know take this up but for the other gerrymandering cases id which have an incredible bearing on congressional representation democracy you know that's being decided now by supreme court that is a republican majority supreme court because they stole a justice right they stole a justice is still obama's ability to appoint merrick garland input in gorsuch and now we're seeing sort of the reverse happened with republicans in pennsylvania where if the court is a different composition than they like already then they'll just remove the justices they don't like so that's the type of a anti democratic thinking that is increasingly becoming the norm in the republican party in in that's bad for democracy.
"pennsylvania supreme court" Discussed on All In with Chris Hayes
"And as attention turns towards the midterm elections one of the places that has democrats salivating is pennsylvania especially after a politically earthshattering decision from the pennsylvania supreme court the court ruled that the state's highly gerrymandered congressional districts clearly and plainly and palpably violate the pennsylvania constitution now keep in mind this is a state which went narrowly for trump in 2016 but which more often goes democratic statewide so to be fair let's say that 5050 state a swing state and yet here's the thing thirteen of the state eighteen congressional districts went to republicans in 2016 let's thirteen republican five democratic republican advantage that is completely out of whack in the swing state so the pennsylvania supreme court order the legislature to draw a nonpartisan map but anticipating that the republicancontrolled legislature the democratic governor my failed to agree the court said essentially if you don't do it in three weeks we will do it ourselves pennsylvania party leaders began closeddoor talks to redraw the district's but the state's republican leaders appealed the decision the us supreme court claiming that state supreme court order intrudes on their legislative turf the us supreme court has not yet decided whether to take the case and then on january twenty six the pennsylvania supreme court issued an additional order requesting data from the legislature things like quote current boundaries of all pennsylvania municipalities and precincts and the response of the republican leader that would be senate president joe scar naughty was to flatly refuse to comply claiming that both orders from the pennsylvania supreme court the springboard of the state that he's in that they were unconstitutional under the us constitution center scar naughty is legally bound to comply even while he waits for decision from his appeal from the us supreme court and if he continues to refuse the pennsylvania supreme court could hold him in contempt of court and even put them in jail now that kind of flagrant lawlessness it appears to be something of a pattern right now the republican party.