Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

News Clash

CONTEST(ED) 2020: How ‘Small’ Win In PA Court Could Mean Big Things For Trump’s Court Challenge

If you read the sellout press, you might dismiss this court victory as insignificant. But if you weigh it in light of the case Trump has been making… this could be big news indeed.

Trump was just awarded a court victory in Pennsylvania. One that is not changing the vote count at all. So why could this be good news for Trump supporters?

“[T]he Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt said in a court order.

“Accordingly, the court hereby orders the respondents County Board of Elections are enjoined from counting any ballots that have been segregated pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this court’s order dated November 5, 2020, granting a special injunction,” Leavitt also wrote.

The conclusion is effectively what the Trump campaign argued, saying Boockvar had exceeded her authority. –JustTheNews

That ballots that would have been covered by this ruling were already held separate from the total count, so the outcome is not shifted at all, but —

This speaks directly to one of of the big arguments Trump supporters have been making about how Democrats have been deliberately (and, they would argue, unConstitutionally) shifting the goalposts to advantage their own party’s electoral chances.

The argument, simply put, is that the Constitution puts authority for creating the electoral rules and standards SQUARELY in the hands of state legislators.

Under the proper reading of separation of powers, this authority cannot be lawfully usurped by any another person or body. Not by civil servants. Not by magistrates. Not by Congress.


This means that the 600 or so instances of court cases we’ve seen Team Biden embark on in the past year to loosen criteria for voting — reduced need for scrutiny, extended deadlines, or any other changes — have zero constitutional authority, and therefore no force of law.

In other words, even if officials overseeing the election process or State magistrates, or even the Governor himself have made modifications to the express laws passed by legislators, if they do not conform to the original laws on the books, they are not valid votes.

Ironically, Team Biden’s efforts to cast a wider net of ballots to the public (for motives that the Senate Judiciary committee absolutely BLASTED), may have inadvertently caused his own supporters to vote in a way that conflicts with the existing laws on the books.

Don’t blame the legislators for that. Blame the people who worked so hard to move the goalposts only to get bitten in the tuchus over it.

If the Supreme Court upholds that understanding of the law, many of the votes that have been padding Joe’s total will be measured against the original standard and not the one Team Biden pushed to revise.

This could flip not just a few votes… but a few states.

In fact, depending how many votes are disqualified, this could theoretically put Trump north of 300 in the Electoral college.

(Hell, he might even capture the popular vote while he’s at it!)

And if they do, it will be because the Democrats were too busy looking for shortcuts, rather than simply making their case to the public.

Don’t like what’s been happening with the election meddling? Have your say in a way Big Media can’t suppress:

Put it on a T-shirt

Or a mug

Don’t wait, get yours now!

To get the shirt, click here.

To get the mug, click here.

Wes Walker

Wes Walker is the author of "Blueprint For a Government that Doesn't Suck". He has been lighting up since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Related Articles