Pennsylvania, one of the critical swing states in the upcoming presidential election, seems to be doing all it can to give the state to Joe Biden. After the state supreme court ruled last week that mail-in ballots must be accepted up to three days after election day on November 3, whether or not the ballot has a postmark, the court ruled yesterday that ballots cannot be rejected if the signature on the ballot doesn’t match the voter’s signature on file.
This nonsensical pair of rulings allows the following scenario: On election day, Trump wins the Pennsylvania vote. Over the next three days, Democrats fill out and submit thousands of ballots with no postmark and any random signature. After those ballots are counted, the state flips to Biden.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is elected rather than appointed, consists of all Democrats. Not a single court ruling in the state has done anything to combat potential vote fraud. In fact, the rulings have favored that fraud, setting up the state to have its electoral votes stolen.
Pennsylvania is known for its corrupt, Democrat-controlled politics in its major metropolitan areas like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Allentown. It looks like the fix is in for Biden in PA.
18 replies on “Pennsylvania Autographs Voter Fraud”
How the hell can something that blatantly biased be legal in this country?
Technically, it applies equally to all votes, Democrat, Republican, or other. That makes it legal, even if it makes no sense and opens up the door to fraud. In practice, we know which side will cheat.
What is truly insane is this assertion within the linked article:
How about we consider anyone who is incapable of completing a ballot correctly the prior to submitting it is too stupid to qualify as a valid voter?
Agreed.
It’s difficult in our system to defend against the incompetent. The electoral college, for one thing, does that as far as it can. But stupidity is impossible to completely overcome. That’s one of the reasons that the pure democracy part of our republic is limited to voting for those who will represent us.
In the past, our mail-in ballot instructions said that if one made a mistake, one should request a new ballot; the instructions made it clear that ballots with errors (cross-outs, double marking, stray marks, white-out) were not valid. In the past, I volunteered to open and ready the mail-in ballots – unfold and scan for errors – for machine counting. In reality, those “invalid ballots” went into a separate pile to be duplicated by individuals in another room – each voter’s “intent” was transferred to a clean ballot – and those clean ballots were added back to the ballots to be counted by machine.
I had thought that, if one made a mistake, one’s ballot was not counted. Silly me. The instructions this year state that, if one makes a mistake, one can simply cross it out and make a different choice. Which jibes with reality, at least.
This is why ALL judges must held accountable to the public — one way or another.
In PA, they say electing them instead of appointing does that. But all it does is make them beholden to the party just like other elected officials. Lifetime appointments at least eliminate that one problem because the judges don’t have to suck up to their parties for favor. That should make them independent of politics to that extent.
I don’t mind the lifetime positions. In fact, I recognize the benefits; however, there must be a formal recall process so that bad judges such as these can be removed from the bench without the need of 5.56mm solution. I don’t have a proper solution, but it seems that nether does anyone else.
The federal Constitution specifies impeachment for federal judges, following the same procedure as for impeaching a president. Since those judges are appointed, however, I don’t see how a recall could work. Who would call for the recall? The president? That just means as much politicking as packing the court – every new administration would issue recalls for the judges it doesn’t like to get its own people in. I don’t have the answer either.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t explain Chief Justice Roberts’ behavior.
What do you mean? I wasn’t referring to anyone specific.
I was commenting on, “Lifetime appointments at least eliminate that one problem because the judges don’t have to suck up to their parties for favor.” One hypothesis to explain Chief Justice Roberts’ left-leaning decisions is social pressure in DC. Those with lifetime appointments may have job security but they’re not immune to the human desire for acceptance.
It might be social pressure, it might not. My point is that elected judges are entirely dependent on political machines, just like every other candidate, therefore they have to engage in all the same pandering and trading favors. A lifetime appointment means that they don’t have to do that. If a judge like Roberts falls prey to pressure, that exposes his individual weakness, not a systemic problem in the way the judiciary is constructed.
Understood. I think we agree.
I think this post hits upon the problem we face as a nation, which is twofold:
What do we do if the legislative branch of state or national government abdicate their role in budgeting and acting as a check on the executive? More importantly, what do we do in America when the judiciary no longer acts as a check and balance on the executive?
I have a very close friend who is under active surveillance by the Chinese communist party and the supreme court of his nation. His life has been threatened because he has become a journalist to unmask this conspiracy between the CCP, the opposition party of his country, and the judiciary, which is actively threatening to either imprison, or kill him.
Where is he now? He’s here, in the US. But he moved to what I call a “second tier plandemic” state, with an out of control governor but not out of control judiciary and law enforcement.
Lastly, if the Left steal this election, Trump and the Senate should nominate and pass 10 hard right justices for the SCOTUS.
Pre-pack the court.
The real problem is, what happens when someone uses their 5.56mm veto on that corruption? He will be vilified in the media and everyone who believes in the rule of law will be attacked also.
I wouldn’t say that’s the real problem but you make an important point. Have you noticed that there is no political right any more? All you see in the news is the far-right. That plus the fundamental leftist belief that everyone is only representative of a group and not an individual means that if one person does something then all they who they have lumped together in the same group as that person are exactly the same. So one lunatic that they label far-right means that everyone on the right is far-right and a lunatic.
Funny, though, how that absurd generalization never applies to the good anyone does. It’s as if only the bad is real to them.
Exactly. I watched the debate again – I can’t believe I did that – and Joe Biden had NOTHING positive to say about anyone or anything. “Only the bad is real to them.”