Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Trump Argument: Observers Just Have to ‘Remain in the Room’

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Trump Argument: Observers Just Have to ‘Remain in the Room’. By Joel Pollack.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Trump campaign’s complaint that observers were not given adequate access to watch the counting process, holding Tuesday that the law did not specify that observers had to be close enough to see details. …

The decision was a 5-2 split for Pennsylvania’s highest court, reflecting the partisan divide among the judges. …

 

Might as well be on another planet

“Section 3146.8(g)(1.1) requires only that an authorized representative “be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail- in ballots are pre-canvassed,” 25 P.S. § 3146.8(g)(1.1) (emphasis added), and Section 3146.8(g)(2) likewise mandates merely that an authorized representative “be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are canvassed.” 25 P.S. § 3146.8(g)(2) (emphasis added). While this language contemplates an opportunity to broadly observe the mechanics of the canvassing process, we note that these provisions do not set a minimum distance between authorized representatives and canvassing activities occurring while they “remain in the room.””

Outrageous.

Here in Australia, scrutineers from each party in the election can watch each ballot, looking over the counter’s shoulder or otherwise able to clearly see. They are able to object to any ballot, to send any disputed ballots up to an adjudication committee. The aim is to convince everyone that the count is fair.

To do otherwise is to allow fraud. That the Democrats want to ban proper scrutiny proves that they are cheating.

Chris:

Assuming the State legislation was likewise applied across the State, where was the ‘opportunity to broadly observe the mechanics of the canvassing process’ at 3 and 4 in the morning when well in excess of 300,000 votes appeared?

The Democrat and Republican ‘scrutineers’ are supposed to have equal access in viewing the count and to remain in the room so as to negate any later charge of fraud.

Charles from Pennsylvania:

I think this decision shows you how corrupt the Democrat party is.

I am getting very angry. It might just be time to go get the pitchforks and load the muskets if this is the kind of idiocy we are going to continue to witness coming from the Democrats.

There is no other way to describe this but sinister and evil which expresses my opinion of the Democrat party leadership. You want to believe them then go buy a used car from them. The media will pick up the theme and lie about this. They abet the Democrats.

You can probably tell that this decision really upset me. It did. This is exactly what I would suspect sleazy lawyers to do. You know what I always say 96% of lawyers give the remaining 4% a bad name. It is good for a chuckle and it clearly is overstated.

In the bigger picture, this sort of tells us the status of our country and whether we are a moral or ethical nation anymore. The answer is not good on that one. The people who took this action might well be considered leaders. That is really bad for us. They did not set an example of what we should expect from moral and ethical people.

I proudly admit to praying on this subject every night. In a way what we are seeing is hopeful. We are witnessing how far we have fallen as a people. We have a lot to make right to restore justice again in this country. We need to purge many in our schools. They have been teaching socialism and racial hatred. To me, it seems that the progressive Democrats are the ones with chips on their shoulders. I am a conservative and it ain’t me.

Imagine living in a country that you were proud of, and then finding that these election shenanigans are allowed. I’d be disgusted too.

hat-tip Charles