Jump to content

Pennsylvania Judge Halts Further Vote Certification Steps

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nobody’s counting ‘chickens’ it’s votes and Biden has millions more votes and more than enough electoral votes.    

Trump is simply extending this as long as he can...just as he did with his business bankruptcies...so he can bilk more people out of money. By stopping payments on his casino debts, he forced the bank

I've said it from the beginning.  Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Posted Images

It sounds as though the lower court judge's planned Friday hearing was canceled, and her ruling held in abeyance pending consideration by the state Supreme Court, according to local news reports there.





Pennsylvania’s top court expected to act quickly on appeal to let state proceed with election certification


McCullough scheduled, then canceled, a hearing within hours Wednesday as the case was bumped up to the state Supreme Court after the Wolf and Boockvar appealed to the Democratic majority judicial panel, asking them to dismiss the case.

Former Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Byer tweeted Wednesday night that the commonwealth’s highest court will likely act quickly (and is designated to hear any Act 77 challenges, anyway). In the meantime, McCullough’s order is unenforceable – meaning DoS could choose to proceed with certification or wait for the outcome of their appeal, Byer wrote later in an email.








Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, a Republican, had issued the order and set a hearing for Friday, but canceled it amid the appeal. It wasn’t immediately clear if she intended to hold up the certification of state and local contests on the ballot or interrupt the scheduled Dec. 14 meeting of the state’s 20 electors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, placeholder said:

“calling an election unfair does not make it so.”

Thanks for the link.

It seems like Team Trump's play is to get this before a set of jurists who don't require evidence. 

By definition, IF that's the case, those are not jurists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...