While media exult in Pennsylvania federal appeals court loss for Trump lawyers, a big victory in state court halts certification of presidential vote
The propaganda media are trying to discourage Trump-supporters by reporting on court losses for the legal team and emphasizing what they characterize as disorganization among the hastily assembled teams of lawyers. Don't fall for the psy-ops!
The mainstream media had a field day yesterday, citing a scathing decision written by a Trump-appointed judge on a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting an attempt to get hinky Pennsylvania ballots thrown out because of fraud. Read Politico's account for a sample of schadenfreude:
"Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections," Judge Stephanos Bibas — an appointee of President Donald Trump — wrote for the three-judge 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel composed entirely of GOP appointees. Bibas' opinion, delivered just after noon Friday, rejected the campaign's appeal of a district court ruling that similarly shredded the suit.
But in an entirely different case brought in Pennsylvania state courts, the Trump team's victory was important. William A. Jacobson, clinical professor of law at Cornell University and proprietor of Legal Insurrection, explains:
A Pennsylvania state court Judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week, and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight. (snip)
The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had "certified" the results, because there were more steps to be taken (snip)
This is not a final ruling on the merits. It's meant to prevent PA from taking more steps until the court finally rules.
Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don't see how this survives the PA Supreme Court. From there, the next stop is the U.S. Supreme Court where we know John Roberts and the three liberal Justice will defer to the state supreme court. But the Court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock again if the 5 conservative Justices voted together.
It seems very likely that we see a defining moment for the Republic and for the Supreme Court when the court balances the gigantic magnitude of throwing out large pools of tainted ballots versus saving the integrity of elections. One imagines that the debate among the nine justices will be the most important in the history of the Court.
Hat tip: Mark Levin.