Republicans Ask Supreme Court To Block Pennsylvania Ballots Decision

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Oct 28, 2024 at 5:51 PM EDT | Updated Oct 28, 2024 at 6:40 PM EDT


Republicans are urging the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order in an effort to block the counting of thousands of provisional ballots in Pennsylvania.

Just over a week before Election Day, the court is being asked to step into a dispute over provisional ballots cast by Pennsylvania voters whose mail ballots are rejected for not following technical procedures in state law, such as missing secrecy envelopes.

The Republican National Committee and Pennsylvania GOP leaders submitted an emergency request to the nation's highest court, seeking to halt a recent state Supreme Court ruling.

The state's high court ruled 4-3 that elections officials must count provisional ballots cast by voters whose mail-in ballots were voided because they arrived without mandatory secrecy envelopes.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-ask-supreme-court-block-pennsylvania-ballots-decsion-1976256

[JohnSJ]

1. They won't hear it before the election 7 days away. Pretty sure Ellias is on top of all of this republican garbage.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. "Pretty sure Ellias is on top of all of this republican garbage."

They have a summary here - https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/rnc-asks-scotus-to-disqualify-certain-provisional-ballots-in-pennsylvania/

Their main site is here - https://www.democracydocket.com/

But note that most of these cases are initially litigated by long-time voting rights orgs (who have been around long before Elias formed his group), but his group will provide material assistance when needed/asked for, including taking the lead.

[JohnSJ]

4. Thanks BRDS

[Think. Again.]

2. Another announcement from newsweek...

...I guess their role is to stir up the followers?

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I suppose you don't look for news much

AP - https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-pennsylvania-provisional-ballots-e72618cfa6bfd6c254015967451e442a
CBS - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-supreme-court-pennsylvania-provisional-ballots/
CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/politics/naked-ballot-voting-supreme-court-pennsylvania/index.html
VOX - https://www.vox.com/scotus/380170/supreme-court-pennsylvania-election-republican-genser
Spotlight PA - https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2024/10/pennsylvania-provisional-ballots-mail-rejected-scotus-appeal/
Pennsylvania Capital-Star - https://penncapital-star.com/election-2024/gop-asks-scotus-to-halt-pennsylvania-supreme-court-ruling-in-butler-county-provisional-ballots-case/

Maybe "the stirring" is from within?

[Think. Again.]

6. I double-checked, and yep, I was correct...

...the source for your OP is newsweek, just as I wrote in my reply.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. They are repeating what all the links I included also say

Some were not available at post time and others were outside of LBN criteria timeframes. So not much of an argument that you have there.

[Think. Again.]

9. Your OP gives newsweek as the original source.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. It's a link to *A* source reporting the informartion

There is nothing exclusive about what they wrote that is different from the other sources.

The one thing about the center-right leaning sites like Politico, The Hill, Newsweek, or a site like Roll Call, etc., is that they are actually pretty much POLITICAL stories "only" sites vs the rest that use up 1/2 of their webpages covering Travis Kelsey/Taylor Swift nonsense, "Lifestyle", "Cooking", "Sports", "Entertainment", "Business", "Real Estate", etc.

That requires having to comb through dozens and dozens of links (even when you pick their "political' category, where they'll still mange to stick some "entertainer" story in there like what has been happening with Alec Baldwin and "Rust" ), to actually find something that fits LBN criteria.

[Think. Again.]

11. Yes, I also appreciate DU's request to not post from rightwing sources.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Meaning

"right wing sources" like "Fox News", "OAN", "InfoWars", "Townhall", "Breitbart", "Blaze", "Washington Times", "The Telegraph", "The New York Post", "Washington Free Beacon", etc.

One needs to understand the difference because you could easily lump CNN (or most of the rest) into the pile of "rightwing" given their owners, .

[Think. Again.]

13. That reminds me of when an ex DUer...

...who claimed to be very Dem Party-active, argued with me about how trustworthy and high-quality the NY Post is!

Oh, good times.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. People are still posting stuff

from the NY Post or Faux. But the TOS has provisions -

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.

When people post "X"s from a Democrat or progressive that is a reply to a RW loon source whose comment is embedded in that "X", that is the type of thing where you have those sources end up here, but they are being pointed to, laughed at, and ridiculed for context purposes.

In the case of those "center-right" sources like Politico (where a DUer's daughter is a reporter), The Hill, Newsweek, WSJ, etc., they haven't gone completely loon (although we know the WSJ is owned by Murdoch but still gets cited here). And because they are narrowly focused on "politics", they are actually getting stories out that the other sites aren't reporting on or will maybe get around to a few days from now, because the latter are covering so many other topics and often try to tie in some "entertainment" nonsense to them for more clicks.

[Think. Again.]

15. Yeah, I always get a chuckle when it's obvious...

...that someone is posting just to spread rightwing crap but then they try to excuse it by saying "know your enemy!" or "Oppo Research!", or some other weak reason.

[cstanleytech]

7. I see no reason for rejecting these ballots for an honest technical error.

[Novara]

16. Of course it's a stupid non-relevant error

But obviously, these people are so afraid of losing they'll try anything to disenfranchise voters.

Not having a secrecy envelope does not change the marked ballot. That's as simple as it is.

If we had an ethical SCOTUS, they wouldn't take the case. But all bets are off with corrupt Alito and corrupt Thomas, who make no effort to hide their political biases.

[riversedge]

17. Do all members need to vote to hear a case? I really have forgotten or did not know in the first place.