Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump 2024 pros and cons


the13bats

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Just throw out approximately 160 years of precedent and have the PA Supreme Court ignore the PA constituion for a desired political result, it's not like this might have unintended and serious consequences later on.

The people who support this will celebrate now, but what happens if in the near future the PA legislature decides to pass an act that essentially completely removes all mail in ballots.  The precedent that the PA Supreme Court just passed means that the PA legislature can make whatever law it wants regarding elections regardless of what the PA constituion says.

Those opposing you arent going to agree with you. It would be an admission that their "Just barely elected" president is illegitimate. Theyll not admit that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Neither Biden nor Trump will turn it around, they are both far too old to serve another 4 years.  Issues will turn it around.  Voting decisions are pretty easy when the parties are so clearly far apart on many issues.  Vote for what you like and believe in.  

Political inertia says one or the other will win the election.

Whether that elected old white man will serve the whole four years is another question. 

Im still waiting to see who Trump picks as the VP. Biden decided to stick with Madam Useless, so thats not going to help him much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Neither Biden nor Trump will turn it around, they are both far too old to serve another 4 years.  Issues will turn it around.  Voting decisions are pretty easy when the parties are so clearly far apart on many issues.  Vote for what you like and believe in.  

We the people deserve better.

2020 showed us that the American people imnsho didn't get to vote for what they liked and believed in as much as had to default vote for coma Joey because they was no way they would accept four more bumbling incompetent life costing years under the rule of king tRumpy Dumpty,

Both guys give me real reasons to consider neither could finish four years not saying they would die but look at how an old morbidly obese guy could have a stroke or heart attack and have to step down,
If BOM goes with puppy killer for VP he would have actually found a lady less liked than the current VP.

I think it will be a Joey win with the VP running things most of  time which comes back to, we deserve better.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Changed it when?  Before, or after Covid.  Act 77 was passed before Covid, which was exactly my point, dummy.

Just showing you how to make your argument, dummy.

Harte

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

This is going to be a rather long post.

First the constitutional issue.  Basically for the PA constituion, until Act 77, all mail in ballots fell under the absentee ballots of which section 14 specifies who exactly is able to request an absentee ballot.

"

§ 14.  Absentee voting.

(a)  The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.

(b)  For purposes of this section, "municipality" means a city, borough, incorporated town, township or any similar general purpose unit of government which may be created by the General Assembly.

(Nov. 5, 1957, P.L.1019, J.R.1; May 16, 1967, P.L.1048, J.R.5; Nov. 5, 1985, P.L.555, J.R.1; Nov. 4, 1997, P.L.636, J.R.3)"

Up until Act 77 which allowed for no excuse mail in ballots the only way to get a mail in ballot in PA was to meet one of the conditions under Section 14 subsection a.

Second is the legal precedent issue.  This isn't the first time that there was an attempt to expand mail in voting in PA by this method, it's actually the third time.  The first two times previous PA Supreme courts ruled that to expand mail in voting that an amendment to the PA constituion would be required.  The first was during the Civil War in 1862 with Chase v. Miller, essentially the case was about the Military Absentee Act of 1839 which essentially allowed PA soldiers to cast absentee ballots at a location determined by their commander but the law was challenged in 1862 when it became clear that 420 absentee soldier votes would change the outcome of the election and the PA Supreme Court then ruled that the Military Absentee Act of 1839 violated the PA constituion and was thus not valid and the 420 absentee soldier votes had to be thrown out.  The PA Supreme Court essentially ruled that the PA constituion as it was written did not allow for that kind of mail in voting and a amendment to the constitution would be required to make those votes legimate and not a law passed by the PA legislature.  The next challenge came in 1923 with the 1923 Absentee Voting Act which allowed PA residents to vote by absentee ballot if they had to be out of the state due to occupation or business and the PA Supreme Court struck it down cause at the time the only allowed absentee votes allowed were for military service and the PA Supreme Court ruled a second time that a change to voting required a constitutional amendment and not a law passed by the legislature.  That all changed with the 2022 PA Supreme Court who threw out all of that precedent set by former PA Supreme courts.

This link has a bit more information on it as I just quickly summarized it.

https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2022/05/23/commonwealth-court-no-excuse-absentee-voting-requires-constitutional-amendment-in-pennsylvania/

Should be noted that eventually amendments were passed that did allow for those kind of absentee votes but the PA legislature just passing them as laws has traditionally been found to violate the PA constituion and thus not be allowed.

I feel like I should add that for the constitutional issue that the PA constituion has generally been accepted as requiring in person voting with the only exception being for the absentee ballots but the 2022 PA Supreme Court is essentially ignoring both former precedent and the constituion itself by essentially redefining stuff however they want to justify their ruling.

 

Thank you very much for the excellent explanation.  I did go to the site that you linked and looked at the arguments - though I disagree with the interpretation, I can see how it was constructed. 

I think it needs to be changed, personally.  Situations will arise where you can't vote in person at your designated polling location (tornado flattened your town, for example) and trying to push through a constitutional amendment to allow people to vote elsewhere seems absurdly out of touch with modern life.

We get tornados here in Texas.  We're allowed to do mail in voting and to vote at any location in the state that's convenient for us.  At the election (I'm an election worker), we have instant access to see if the voter is registered anywhere in the state and they've got a good system for mail in ballots.  I see no reason why Pennsylvania can't do the same.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Political inertia says one or the other will win the election.

Whether that elected old white man will serve the whole four years is another question. 

Im still waiting to see who Trump picks as the VP. Biden decided to stick with Madam Useless, so thats not going to help him much. 

I am going to maintain that Social Security, Medicare, abortion rights, climate change, Israel,  and trans acceptance will determine the election rather than whose name is on the ballot. The parties have almost antagonistic views on most of those.

How to deal with a misbehaving puppy may be the top issue for a few folks.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

 

Thank you very much for the excellent explanation.  I did go to the site that you linked and looked at the arguments - though I disagree with the interpretation, I can see how it was constructed. 

I think it needs to be changed, personally.  Situations will arise where you can't vote in person at your designated polling location (tornado flattened your town, for example) and trying to push through a constitutional amendment to allow people to vote elsewhere seems absurdly out of touch with modern life.

We get tornados here in Texas.  We're allowed to do mail in voting and to vote at any location in the state that's convenient for us.  At the election (I'm an election worker), we have instant access to see if the voter is registered anywhere in the state and they've got a good system for mail in ballots.  I see no reason why Pennsylvania can't do the same.

 

Right, wrong, or outdated the PA constituion is what it is and former precedent is what it is and ultimately this current PA Supreme Court have decided to ignore the PA constituion and throw out 160 years of precedent.  

Essentially the main issue is are laws and rules going to be followed as they are written or are we going to allow individuals or some group to change the laws and rules arbitrarily when they never had that authority to begin with.  

If PA has mail in voting or not or whatever form or requirements are attached is not the issue, the issue is that changes were made improperly and now a new and very dangerous precedent was set.  For example what if in the next couple years the PA legislature decides to pass a new voting law that rescinds act 77 completely and further restricts absentee voting, the precedent created by the PA Supreme Court will allow it.  To top it off since the PA legislature can make laws that change the PA constitution in one area without using the amendment process what is stopping the PA legislature from doing it in other areas of the PA constituion.  

A very possible end result of all of this is either a state constitution that is largely meaningless and up to the whims of whoever controls the PA legislature at that moment or a Supreme Court that is so heavily partisan that it loses all credibility or both.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in reading the actual PA Supreme Court decision, in lieu of editorialized pejorative comments, it's linked to in this NPR piece.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1099806224/pennsylvania-act-77-supreme-court-decision-mail-in-voting-lawsuit

Makes for an interesting read, so far.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

If anyone is interested in reading the actual PA Supreme Court decision, in lieu of editorialized pejorative comments, it's linked to in this NPR piece.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1099806224/pennsylvania-act-77-supreme-court-decision-mail-in-voting-lawsuit

Makes for an interesting read, so far.

And thank you as well.  I did wonder about the neutrality of the previous piece.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I am going to maintain that Social Security, Medicare, abortion rights, climate change, Israel,  and trans acceptance will determine the election rather than whose name is on the ballot. The parties have almost antagonistic views on most of those.

How to deal with a misbehaving puppy may be the top issue for a few folks.

I agree -- at least, that's the basis of voting decisions made by people in my social circles.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I agree -- at least, that's the basis of voting decisions made by people in my social circles.

Sadly, I forgot the eyes up front:  immigration and inflation.   Sadder still,  his followers will be disappointed and financially hurt big time if he ever got his way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Im still waiting to see who Trump picks as the VP. Biden decided to stick with Madam Useless, so thats not going to help him much. 

It will be a money raising TV show like Apprentice II,  Interviews, tests, embarrassments, a sure leader, then an upset in the 2nd episode then a surprise leader in the 3rd.   Pay $5 call a special number to vote for your favorite.   Tim Scott may have to buy a dog and kill it to get level with Kristy Noem. 

And as I noted to Kenemet above, I fort=got two major issuers.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2024 at 5:49 AM, and-then said:

About the only way forward to save this country now would be to return to paper ballots, same day registration and same day voting with mandatory biometric ID.      

The Tory Party in the UK (equivalent to your Republicans) introduced mandatory photo ID for voting. The acceptable photos included bus passes because pensioners were traditionally Tory voters, and excluded Young People's Travel Cards because young people weren't. It also included as acceptable passports and driving licenses as these were most often held by people reasonably wealthy. The aim was to try to restrict votes to the elderly and wealthy, to give the Tories an electoral advantage.

It backfired. The Tories have had a drubbing in every election since it was introduced. (Local elections only as we haven't had a General Election yet). Part of the reason is the elderly forget. They've never had to do it before (we don't have a problem with voter fraud and never had have). Their passports are out of date (they haven't been to Spain for 15 years), their bus pass is somewhere (the driver knows them and never asks for it), and by the time they have fed Tiddles, they forgot what their daughter told them about voter ID. When they are turned away, they don't return.

A prominent Tory, Jacob Rees Mogg, complained about 'gerrymandering' last year because of the ID rule change his own Party had brought in. This year, two prominent Tories were turned away for lack of ID (one being ex-PM  Boris Johnson).

Be careful about what you wish for is what I say.

 

 

 

Edited by pellinore
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2024 at 9:49 PM, and-then said:

About the only way forward to save this country now would be to return to paper ballots, same day registration and same day voting with mandatory biometric ID.

I am in favor of biometric ID.  You think your neighbors are going to go for biometric ID's or believe it is a deep state government plot?   I am not sure how paper ballots will help, even as Trump said it is the one counting the votes that matters.  How are you going to make that honest? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I am in favor of biometric ID.  You think your neighbors are going to go for biometric ID's or believe it is a deep state government plot?   I am not sure how paper ballots will help, even as Trump said it is the one counting the votes that matters.  How are you going to make that honest? 

Biometric ID will never happen, at least for a couple of generations. There are a LOT of people out there that believe ANYTHING biometric is the same as accepting the "mark of the beast". Heck they were going crazy over Musk's brain chip.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, esoteric_toad said:

Biometric ID will never happen, at least for a couple of generations. There are a LOT of people out there that believe ANYTHING biometric is the same as accepting the "mark of the beast". Heck they were going crazy over Musk's brain chip.

Well , thanks to Trump , the "Antichrist" , now everyone gonna have to get the mark of the beast.:ph34r:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I am going to maintain that Social Security, Medicare, abortion rights, climate change, Israel,  and trans acceptance will determine the election rather than whose name is on the ballot. The parties have almost antagonistic views on most of those.

Im going to agree, but only in so far as how these issues affect the voting independents in the six swing states.

It will be these 20% to 30% of the voters in those states who decide the election. And right now, in those states, and on those subjects, Biden isnt winning any gold ribbons.

What can Biden do about SSI? Basically nothing, unless the Ds take the House back, and hold the Senate. Even than, Ds dont have the guts currently to fix it as it needs.

Bidens Administration is alresdy starting to cut back Medicare. Again, without a D congress, hes out of luck.

Abortion. Biden coukd try Executive Orders, but I think he knows thats not going to work. EOs have failed him time and time again.

Climate Change. Biden's made a lot of noise, but much of it is mocked as stupid... Everyone to electric vehicles. Get rid of gas stoves... C'Mon Man! Might be a good idea viewed from the future, but right now its laughable.

Trans? Everyone just hears DEI. Which is a dying theme. Being dropped everywhere. Sounded good. And on paper, is a worthy goal. But in practice, it is pure stupid. New research has shown that many of the trans memes, such as saving a kid from suicide with gender affirmation and trans treatment, are false, and never were true. Trans kids need help, yes, but it is kindness and paitience, that is needed, not puberty blockers and brainwashing.

Israel. Biden was strong on this at first, but with the various university demonstrations, he's had to flip flop on his unconditional support, and has left several American citizens to rot in Gaza as hostages. Hows he going to explain this in a Trump/Biden debate?

So, yeah, IMHO Biden is up the creek without a paddle. Hes desires to bring up his support with his base, so he doesnt lose Muslims, or Trans, or Jews, but in so doing, he pushes away those moderate independent voters who would otherwise get him elected.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

It will be a money raising TV show like Apprentice II,  Interviews, tests, embarrassments, a sure leader, then an upset in the 2nd episode then a surprise leader in the 3rd.   Pay $5 call a special number to vote for your favorite.   Tim Scott may have to buy a dog and kill it to get level with Kristy Noem. 

And as I noted to Kenemet above, I fort=got two major issuers.

I think Trump will do what he did last time.

He'll pick a elderly white male politician known to be a fastidious Christian. Question will he how slavish this person will be toward Trump. 

I can think of lots of good options of whom, but I'm worried it will be someone who is simply a puppet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I am in favor of biometric ID.  You think your neighbors are going to go for biometric ID's or believe it is a deep state government plot?   I am not sure how paper ballots will help, even as Trump said it is the one counting the votes that matters.  How are you going to make that honest? 

I've seen on here a certain very loyal ( bent knee head bowed ) Trump subject list what it would take to make elections fair in his opinion,

I've also seen that same person say any outcome that dolt45 isn't the winner will not be accepted/tolarated.

And go on to bray well over half the country will not accept it and then he goes into doom and gloom predictions if BOM can't threaten and bully the American people into getting his way.

2020 showed how the people felt.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think Trump will do what he did last time.

He'll pick a elderly white male politician known to be a fastidious Christian. Question will he how slavish this person will be toward Trump. 

I can think of lots of good options of whom, but I'm worried it will be someone who is simply a puppet.

I'm in doubt. First, Trump will not select anyone who is not loyal to him before their loyalty to the country.  That seems to be the drift of what  everyone around him has been saying.   Trump continues to select family members for jobs they are not qualified to hold.   He is lo0oking for loyalty and no  back talk. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Im going to agree, but only in so far as how these issues affect the voting independents in the six swing states.

It will be these 20% to 30% of the voters in those states who decide the election. And right now, in those states, and on those subjects, Biden isnt winning any gold ribbons.

What can Biden do about SSI? Basically nothing, unless the Ds take the House back, and hold the Senate. Even than, Ds dont have the guts currently to fix it as it needs.

Bidens Administration is alresdy starting to cut back Medicare. Again, without a D congress, hes out of luck.

Abortion. Biden coukd try Executive Orders, but I think he knows thats not going to work. EOs have failed him time and time again.

Climate Change. Biden's made a lot of noise, but much of it is mocked as stupid... Everyone to electric vehicles. Get rid of gas stoves... C'Mon Man! Might be a good idea viewed from the future, but right now its laughable.

Trans? Everyone just hears DEI. Which is a dying theme. Being dropped everywhere. Sounded good. And on paper, is a worthy goal. But in practice, it is pure stupid. New research has shown that many of the trans memes, such as saving a kid from suicide with gender affirmation and trans treatment, are false, and never were true. Trans kids need help, yes, but it is kindness and paitience, that is needed, not puberty blockers and brainwashing.

Israel. Biden was strong on this at first, but with the various university demonstrations, he's had to flip flop on his unconditional support, and has left several American citizens to rot in Gaza as hostages. Hows he going to explain this in a Trump/Biden debate?

So, yeah, IMHO Biden is up the creek without a paddle. Hes desires to bring up his support with his base, so he doesnt lose Muslims, or Trans, or Jews, but in so doing, he pushes away those moderate independent voters who would otherwise get him elected.

Well friend, you make logical statements as if either party would actually try to fulfill a promise.  The easy way to beat your opponent is through fear.  Both sides are cranking out the fear over what the other party will do.  

Trump will take away your social security, your Medicare, and your right to choose.  We will not do that.  We will protect your rights.  OR

Biden will destroy the US with an open border and inflation.  Only Trump can fix it.

So easy to stoke fear, it has become the fallback position.

And so it goes.  In climate change, Biden is stupid, Trump is in denial.  Where will younger voters  alight? Trans is more of a young person's issue to advocate  than it is for older folks. Israel, interesting. According to Reuters, about 85% of Israeli citizens want Netanyahu gone. Many of our European allies feel the same way. 

Biden is playing up a new middle east with talks among the Saudis, Israelis, Egyptians,  and  UAE .  If he gets it done, there will be a Palestinian state, and a border guarded by a peacekeeping[ping force  composed of Arab neighbors acceptable to Israel.  Why would SA do that?  Maybe for a defense pact with the US as an umbrella against Iran.  Lots of carrots for everybody.  The biggest carrot we save for ourselves.  We can kick the dust off our sandals and get out of being the Middle East Policeman. Good for all involved.

As for independents, in Indiana, Nikki Haley got 22% of the vote, even though and she dropped out 2 months ago.  Trump seems to be having trouble getting his own party behind him.

Swing states or surprises in solid red or blue states remains to be seen.  There is a good chance you are right though.. a relative handfull will decide th enext president.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well friend, you make logical statements as if either party would actually try to fulfill a promise.  The easy way to beat your opponent is through fear.  Both sides are cranking out the fear over what the other party will do.  

Trump will take away your social security, your Medicare, and your right to choose.  We will not do that.  We will protect your rights.  OR

Biden will destroy the US with an open border and inflation.  Only Trump can fix it.

So easy to stoke fear, it has become the fallback position.

And so it goes.  In climate change, Biden is stupid, Trump is in denial.  Where will younger voters  alight? Trans is more of a young person's issue to advocate  than it is for older folks. Israel, interesting. According to Reuters, about 85% of Israeli citizens want Netanyahu gone. Many of our European allies feel the same way. 

Biden is playing up a new middle east with talks among the Saudis, Israelis, Egyptians,  and  UAE .  If he gets it done, there will be a Palestinian state, and a border guarded by a peacekeeping[ping force  composed of Arab neighbors acceptable to Israel.  Why would SA do that?  Maybe for a defense pact with the US as an umbrella against Iran.  Lots of carrots for everybody.  The biggest carrot we save for ourselves.  We can kick the dust off our sandals and get out of being the Middle East Policeman. Good for all involved.

As for independents, in Indiana, Nikki Haley got 22% of the vote, even though and she dropped out 2 months ago.  Trump seems to be having trouble getting his own party behind him.

Swing states or surprises in solid red or blue states remains to be seen.  There is a good chance you are right though.. a relative handfull will decide th enext president.

What also deserves consideration is Trump never won popular and lost 2020 not because people all wanted sleepy but rather because they didn't want Trump, in 2016 a big part of Trump winning was people didn't really want hilly and gave dolt45 a chance that he of course blew and they sorly regret.

I know lifelong GOP who turned back to the party because of Trump some refused to vote at all while others went Dem, youth I know hate BOM like poison yet are warm to sleepy.

BOM lost a lot of support with his antics of cry baby sore loser election fraud claims, failed insurrection and countless crimes we all saw people we thought were Trump subjects denounce him after Jan 6th.

While it's not a gauge of their voting I have noticed a business that always had signs bashing Joey now have signs about how terrible we all are allowing the country to be divided, not much way not to recognize BOM drove the country apart however, these business might have changed their signage due to costing them customers.

When you get voted out as BOM did it's twice as hard to get that back I think he has far too much negativity to make it happen, not that his subjects don't love negativity they are just very small numbers now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Right, wrong, or outdated the PA constituion is what it is and former precedent is what it is and ultimately this current PA Supreme Court have decided to ignore the PA constituion and throw out 160 years of precedent.  

Actually, it's not "throw it out" but rather "interpretation" since the Constitution doesn't actually deal with mail-in ballots.

Constitutions NEED to be living, changeable documents.  Cultures change, laws change (slavery is now illegal, for example, and under the original US Constitution only white landholders could vote https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/), for example.

You and your sources may not like it.  However, if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (which decides this based on other laws that are passed for that state) decides that it's legal, then it is indeed legal-- according to that very constitution.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I'm in doubt. First, Trump will not select anyone who is not loyal to him before their loyalty to the country.  That seems to be the drift of what  everyone around him has been saying.   Trump continues to select family members for jobs they are not qualified to hold.   He is lo0oking for loyalty and no  back talk. 

Did you notice that his newly appointed RNC spokesperson is (I kid you not) a bikini model? https://nypost.com/2024/05/06/us-news/meet-elizabeth-pipko-the-maga-loving-bikini-model-who-is-gops-sexiest-new-spokeswoman/

Yeah... just what we all needed in a politician -- the ability to show off a Brazilian wax.  

I did, however, look her up and she does have some cred... so it's not as peculiar as one might think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Pipko

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, it's not "throw it out" but rather "interpretation" since the Constitution doesn't actually deal with mail-in ballots.

Constitutions NEED to be living, changeable documents.  Cultures change, laws change (slavery is now illegal, for example, and under the original US Constitution only white landholders could vote https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/), for example.

You and your sources may not like it.  However, if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (which decides this based on other laws that are passed for that state) decides that it's legal, then it is indeed legal-- according to that very constitution.  

They literally changed how the PA constitution has been interpreted for approximately 160 years for a brand new interpretation, that is literally throwing it out.  

And there are methods of changing the PA constitution that are being ignored cause they are not politically expedient enough to one political party.  

The PA Supreme Court did decide it was legal and in the process upended 160 years of legal precedent and opened the door to potentially radical new changes which the Democrats may not find as favorable in the near to intermediate future. 

Just remember it was Democrat Senator Reid who broke tradition and changed the presidential appointment rules from requiring 60 votes to only needing 51 and not too long after Republicans used that to get Trump to appoint three Supreme Court Justices.  If one party starts upending tradition and breaking former precedent the other party will too it doesn't just go one way. 

So the PA Supreme Court essentially ruled that the PA legislature can change voting however they want regardless of the PA constituion so if in a few years the Republicans take back the governor, which was Republican from 2011 to 2015, and Republicans control the PA legislature, which they frequently do control, then Republicans can just now change the voting laws however they want to benefit the Republicans.  Brilliant long term strategic thinking on the part of the Democrats

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.