RLENT
Veteran Expediter
In court rooms you get law, but not necessarily justice......
And at a barbershop you're unlikely to find either.
Unless the barber or someone getting their hair cut is a lawyer that is.
In court rooms you get law, but not necessarily justice......
I once worked as a staff person (not a corrections officer) in a prison. When I read your post, my first thought was about the many inmates who would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Many of them feel their convictions and/or sentences are unjust. Many of them feel the judges and juries should have listened to their mothers and others who testified "he's a good kid" or words to that effect.In court rooms you get law, but not necessarily justice......
They might need those “fake” electors after all .
Also, Rudy Guiliani vindicated.
Vindicated? No. Implicated? Yes.Also, Rudy Guiliani vindicated.
The Trumpets would just love that...Let us Defund the White House and send all of them home and start over, a fresh broom sweeps cleaner ............................
The Dems are going keep chasing this turkey of an issue down a rabbit hole. It’s one of the reasons they’re so unpopular right now. OUT OF TOUCH.
The Dems are going keep chasing this turkey of an issue down a rabbit hole. It’s one of the reasons they’re so unpopular right now. OUT OF TOUCH.
The PA. appellate court has spoken: It was unconstitutional.
Victory for the side of people who believe in the PA. constitution.
6 out of 10 Democrats......
6 out of 10 Democrats......
Oh I’m sure the Dems on the Pa. supreme will twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize their decision. It won’t be in following the Pa. Constitution on the matter though, because it is cut and dry: The people have to decide, not the legislature.Too bad they don't have the last word on the matter ...
But apparently not the US Constitution.
Oh I’m sure the Dems on the Pa. supreme will twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize their decision.
It won’t be in following the Pa. Constitution on the matter though, because it is cut and dry: The people have to decide, not the legislature.
What did the dissenting judges say?
Two Commonwealth Court judges elected as Democrats, Michael Wojcik and Ellen Ceisler, wrote in their dissent that the majority is wrongly lumping in no-excuse mail voting with the language in the constitution allowing absentee voting.
The two pointed to another section of the constitution that empowers the legislature to “provide for another means by which an elector may cast a ballot,” such as Act 77.
That section states: “All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law.” (The emphasis was added by the judges.)
“Thus, the General Assembly is constitutionally empowered to enact Act 77 to provide for qualified and registered electors present in their municipality of residence on an election day to vote by no-excuse mail-in ballot,” Wojcik wrote in the opinion.
I was speaking specifically about the alternate electors issue. Not the Jan6 “investigation”. (The Dems stupidly forging ahead trying to put people in jail for years for having alternate electors ready in case the courts ruled in their favor. It’s just incredibly dumb to pursue this.)