PA state CONSTITUTION bans no-excuse mail-in voting but 35% of 2020 vote was mail-in

Republicans criticize Democrats for minor fun stuff like dead people voting
but then get all serious about implementing legitimate voter suppression.

Fuck them.
 
Althea said:
You used that article because it said what you want it to say.

3 rogue judges ruled against mail in voting, but they were overturned immediately. Mail in voting is legal and accepted in Pa., as per the constitution.

Who's stupid now?
Click to expand...

You don't even understand the issue. Mail-in voting is legal in PA and no one disputes that. But NO-EXCUSE mail-in voting is banned by the state constitution.
 
QP! said:
LOL at a person so stupid they do not know that Constitutions are interpreted constantly, saying to someone else think.

So is it your position that the leanings of the SC Justices, whether Republican or Dem, do not matter as there is nothing to interpret? That rulings would not change whether it was all Justices that were more Progressive versus very conservative?

Honestly, be less stupid. Every Constitution is interpreted by the Justices and the leanings of those doing it matter. Roe V Wade and Gun rights, and Money in politics in Federal cases should have all educated you on this but obviously you were too stupid to understand that.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You liberals do this all the time. You let judges rewrite the constitution and then call it a new "interpretation."

JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW. They can no more rewrite their state constitution than you or i can.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Republicans criticize Democrats for minor fun stuff like dead people voting
but then get all serious about implementing legitimate voter suppression.

Fuck them.
Click to expand...

Stop changing the subject. The PA state constitution bans no-excuse mail-in voting. I gave you the quote as proof. nuf sed.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. You liberals do this all the time. You let judges rewrite the constitution and then call it a new "interpretation."

JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW. They can no more rewrite their state constitution than you or i can.
Click to expand...

Ok so i say the 2nd amendment is clear. People should be much more regulated in regards to guns.

Judges have no say. only MY interpretation matters per your rules.

Is that right?
 
QP! said:
Ok so i say the 2nd amendment is clear. People should be much more regulated in regards to guns.

Judges have no say. only MY interpretation matters per your rules.

Is that right?
Click to expand...

Of course judges have a say. But they don't have final say. That's a dictatorship. This whole issue could have been avoided if PA had amended the constitution like they should have done.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Of course judges have a say. But they don't have final say. That's a dictatorship. This whole issue could have been avoided if PA had amended the constitution like they should have done.
Click to expand...

So if you have a person who believes they have a right to carry guns in NYS and NYS says 'no' and that person sues, saying NY is infringing the Constitution ... and NYS disagrees saying that is within a States right to regulate, ... who gets final say if you are saying the SC does not?
 
QP! said:
So if you have a person who believes they have a right to carry guns in NYS and NYS says 'no' and that person sues, saying NY is infringing the Constitution ... and NYS disagrees saying that is within a States right to regulate, ... who gets final say if you are saying the SC does not?
Click to expand...

The 2A is very ambiguous. The clause in the PA state constitution that bans no-excuse mail-in voting is not. Stop comparing the two.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
CAN'T YOU READ.? The state constitution bans mail-in voting. The legislators can't override that with a law. The constitution has to be amended.
Click to expand...

Your post specifically says the state constitution allows mail-in voting for several different reasons. If more choose to vote absentee it does not mean there is cheating.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The 2A is very ambiguous. The clause in the PA state constitution that bans no-excuse mail-in voting is not. Stop comparing the two.
Click to expand...

Ok Step 1 complete.

You are now admitting the supreme court CAN interpret the constitution as long as you say it is not ambiguous.

Who determines what in the Constitutions (State and Federal) is ambiguous or not?

I am asking, if you have two parties arguing over a clause and taking it to Court, and the SC makes a decision does that not mean it was ambiguous?

If that is hard to answer give me examples of 'Liberals doing this all the time', over what you think are other not ambiguous cases.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. You liberals do this all the time. You let judges rewrite the constitution and then call it a new "interpretation."

JUDGES ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW. They can no more rewrite their state constitution than you or i can.
Click to expand...
What is so hard to understand?

Republicans shopped for a court that would give them a result that they were looking for. It was their biased interpretation of the state constitution.

So their ruling was overturned by a higher court that interpreted the state constitution properly. Why can't you grasp that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top