Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#26

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:19 am

I have to admit that I think a reversal and order to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction would be the better part of judicial valor, as I think that court way overstepped its authority in the matter.

Besides, it will give Puzzi something else to spit and hiss about.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#27

Post by bob » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:52 am

SCoPA:
March 22, 2016 Amicus Curiae Brief Amicus Curiae McManamon, Mary Brigid

* * *

March 23, 2016 Application for Intervention Possible Intervenor Williams, Victor

* * *

March 23, 2016 Submitted on Brief Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The docket says Williams has a Maryland address. I'm guessing he is this Catholic University of America professor.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#28

Post by bob » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:03 am

Notorial Dissent wrote:I have to admit that I think a reversal and order to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction would be the better part of judicial valor, as I think that court way overstepped its authority in the matter.
You aren't alone: EoD blog: Pennsylvania Supreme Court expedites hearing on spurious Cruz eligibility claim:
I use the adjective "spurious" in the title of this post not because I believe that it's obvious that Mr. Cruz is a natural born citizen; indeed, I've conceded that the question is closer than one may expect, and I have my own inclinations, but I've found Michael Ramsey's perspective to be the most persuasive in concluding that he is eligible.

Instead, it is because there is simply no requirement under Pennsylvania law that a citizen be "eligible" to obtain ballot access. Indeed, the very opposite is true.

I've written, extensively, about this very basic error in these qualifications disputes. There is no free-standing ability for courts to scrutinize qualifications of candidates for president. Instead, it is reserved to the states to administer ballot access. States can decide whether to list a candidate, or not list a candidate. One must refer to state law. To be sure, there is a concern that a state may list a candidate ineligible for office--but there is no federal right to keep an unqualified candidate off the ballot. Instead, such decisions reside in state law.

This is in part because there are many who may evaluate the qualifications of a candidate--voters, being one of them! But presidential electors can also decide whether a candidate is eligible or not, and decide not to vote for him. Indeed, many (but not all!) decided that Horace Greeley was no longer eligible after he died in 1872 after the election and cast votes for others.

The state court in Pennsylvania was in grave error[*] when it concluded otherwise: "the Constitution does not vest the Electoral College with power to determine the eligibility of a Presidential candidate since it only charges the members of the Electoral College to select acandidate for President and then transmit their votes to the nation's 'seat of government.'" What does the power to "select" mean if it does not include the discretion to decide whether someone is fit for office--including, whether someone is eligible for office?

And the Court was wrong to conclude that Congress lacks this power, too: "no Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to determine Presidential eligibility. Moreover, other than setting forth the bare argument, the Candidate offers no further support for the contrary proposition."

Well, apart from my Indiana Law Journal article extensively discussing this precise point, one could easily cite the instance of Congress refusing to count electoral votes cast for Horace Greeley in 1873 because it believed he was not eligible to serve as president[**]; or Congress's resolution in 2008 decreeing that John McCain was a natural born citizen, presumably because it believed it had the power to scrutinize qualifications in its power, likely under the subsequent language of the Counting Clause of the Twentieth Amendment, at the very least.

But this is essentially because the Pennsylvania state court confused the political question doctrine--that a question is exclusively reserved to another branch--with this issue. That is, it may not be a political question; but, it is certainly the case that many other political actors hold the power simultaneously. That, I think, is good reason to give pause.

* * *

Pennsylvania leaves it other actors--not election officials, and, by proxy, not courts reviewing the decisions of election officials--to scrutinize qualifications.

Historical practice supports this view. In 1972, for instance, Linda Jenness and Andrew Pulley, both under 35 years of age, appeared on the Pennsylvania ballot under the Socialist Workers Party presidential ticket. Pennsylvania recorded thousands of votes cast for them. Even though both were ineligible.
* But see Lindsay v. Bowen.

** Greeley would have received 66 electoral votes, but he died before the Electoral College assembled. Three electors nonetheless voted for Greeley, but they were disqualified due to his lack of aliveness.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34944
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#29

Post by realist » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:16 am

H/T to Stern... :thumbs:

Elliott v Cruz SCOPA - BRIEF FOR APPELLANT CARMON ELLIOTT Final with TOC and TOA
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#30

Post by bob » Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:31 pm

bob wrote:SCoPA:
March 23, 2016 Application for Intervention Possible Intervenor Williams, Victor
The docket says Williams has a Maryland address. I'm guessing he is this Catholic University of America professor.
Williams is, in fact, that professor. :dance:

According to Williams' request to intervene, he is also running for president. :roll: According to Williams, he is a write-in candidate for the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, has requested write-in status for other states' upcoming primaries, and has requested ballot placement for South Dakota.

IIRC, one of Sibley's cases discussed how a sham candidacy cannot create standing.


And, "for completeness," McManamon's amicus curiae brief.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#31

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:04 am

Apropos of nothing, McManamon's effort is certainly better written than Einhauge's, but I don't agree with her conclusions any more than I do with his. She at least has something like credentials to be writing it though.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

#32

Post by bob » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:39 pm

Dallas Morning News: Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirms Cruz’s eligibility to be president:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Sen. Ted Cruz’s slot on the state presidential ballot Thursday, siding with a lower-court ruling that declared the senator is a natural-born citizen.

The court turned away an appeal from Pittsburgh resident Carmon Elliott, who had sued to boot Cruz from the state’s April 26 primary. Elliott had claimed that Cruz’s birth in Canada excluded him from natural-born citizenship — a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
SCOPA's order simply reads:
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED. Victor Williams’s pro se Notice to Intervene as Appellant is DENIED. Appellant’s Application for Oral Argument is DENIED.
I'm a little surprised that SCOPA didn't vacate and order the lower court to dismiss.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

#33

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:55 pm

That's what I would have expected, that way they could side step the whole issue. Well, I suspect we can look forward to a USSC appeal now.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

#34

Post by bob » Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:00 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:That's what I would have expected, that way they could side step the whole issue. Well, I suspect we can look forward to a USSC appeal now.
This is the birthers' best shot: An on-the-merits ruling by a state supreme court that Cruz is eligible.

I would gauge the chance of cert. being granted (by a less than fully constituted SCOTUS) somewhere between "no" and "HELL, NO."

That is, assuming counsel is sufficiently competent to get this to SCOTUS before the Pennsylvania primary (April 26). Because the issue will be shirley mute by July 22.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#35

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:23 pm

If they're as good at meeting deadlines as they seem to have been elsewhere, not likely.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10183
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#36

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:53 pm

RedState:
Boom! PA Top Court Roasts another Cruz-Birther :lol:
Posted by apkyletexas on March 31, 2016 at 3:45 pm

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just denied review of a case brought by serial-birther Carmen Elliott, handing a birther-controversy victory to Ted Cruz in the state. Elliott, who had previously filed a losing challenge against Cruz before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission, had his Pennsylvania filing turned down by Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini on March 11. Pellegrini ruled that:

"common law precedent and statutory history maintain that an eligible candidate includes any person born to an American citizen, regardless of where"

The PA Supreme Court justices took all of three sentences to deny Elliott a hearing.

Cruz's lawyer advanced two arguments in the case:

Cruz is a natural born citizen who is eligible for the presidency
Congress or the Electoral College would be the proper venue for deciding birther challenges, not the courts

tngal • 24 minutes ago
Have you noticed how the birther talk has really gone down since Trump and his minions started losing these suits? It's not so much that I want to throw a copy of all these judicial opinions in Trump's face, because he and his followers don't know any better and can't read the constitution. Rather the copies should be thrown in the faces of the R's who had the unmitigated gall to say "well maybe it should be looked at" and "I don't know if he's American or not"
http://www.redstate.com/diary/apkyletex ... z-birther/
Photo: In honor of Lt Root Beer! Support the 699th: https://www.facebook.com/Imperial-Illum ... 259897297/
Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#37

Post by bob » Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:29 pm

Kerchner takes the news in stride: Disgraceful Unconstitutional Ruling: PA Supreme Court Affirms Lower Court – Leaves Ineligible Ted Cruz on PA Ballot:
Disgraceful Unconstitutional Ruling: With What Amounts to a One Sentence Judgment with No Explanation, the PA Supreme Court Affirms Lower Court – Leaves Foreign Born and Constitutionally Ineligible Ted Cruz on PA Ballot

The PA Supreme Court Justices have with this ruling simply and totally ignored their Oath of Office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and continue to permit a foreign born, constitutionally ineligible candidate Ted Cruz to remain on the ballot for the PA Primary. The lower court ruling was flawed and should have been reversed. The briefs by the appellant and friends of the court filings were very clear on the law and precedence. Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” Citizen at birth asserting his claim to basic Citizen via a U.S. born mother by statutory law. Ted Cruz is NOT a “natural born” Citizen at birth via Natural Law or to constitutional standards or per prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings re foreign born persons.

This decision by the appeals court was more based on their political eyes and ears and moist fingers in the winds of national politics (and thus they punted showing cowardice imo) by failing to rule objectively on the merits, i.e., that Ted Cruz is at most a “naturalized” Citizen of the USA, that were presented in the appeal filings and lower court filings by the appellant re the precedent U.S. naturalization laws and U.S. Supreme Court decisions and/or the originalism understanding, meaning, and intent of the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause in our U.S. Constitution.

The PA Supreme Court totally ducked the issue by punting via affirming this lower court decision and not siding with the clear-cut merits presented in the appeal briefs and Memorandum of Law to the lower courts that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” Citizen and is not a “natural born” Citizen.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#38

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:09 pm

I expected Kirchy to spew snargle, and I was right.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10183
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#39

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:52 pm

Poor Chuckles. Still a loser. Thanks for the entertainment!

Image
Photo: In honor of Lt Root Beer! Support the 699th: https://www.facebook.com/Imperial-Illum ... 259897297/
Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#40

Post by bob » Fri Apr 01, 2016 6:04 pm

Gawker: Pennsylvania Affirms Dubious Proposition That Ted Cruz Is a Human:
At issue was whether Cruz, whose mother is a U.S. citizen, qualifies as a natural-born citizen as defined under Article II of the Constitution. So far, judges in Illinois and New York have declined to rule against Cruz on the issue, which has never been defined by the Supreme Court. But the conclusion that Cruz is a citizen of the United States also requires accepting the dubious notion Cruz is not, say, a rat king dressed in an ill-fitting skin suit.

Either way, at least one person had some fun with the case: Pittsburgh retiree Carmon Eliott, who brought the suit. Eliott, who is not a lawyer, represented himself pro se and engaged in a bit of soul searching along the way.

“This is not a political issue,” he told the Post-Gazette earlier this month. “Although I guess I have asked myself, would you be so preoccupied if the candidate who was born outside the country been a Democrat or a progressive? I might not have had quite the enthusiasm that I’ve had.”

And he was very enthusiastic, in a savage way—according to McCall, he paid to have a process server arrive “several hours early” at a campaign stop in Atlanta in order to shake Cruz’s hand before serving him.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#41

Post by magdalen77 » Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:11 pm

Well look at that, a pro se litigant who knows how to serve a lawsuit. Maybe he can advise Orly.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#42

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Apr 02, 2016 1:25 am

Nah, she'd never accept that, he's not a perfesional lawyer like her. Besides she's already proven that she is incapable of learning, even when repeatedly schooled.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10183
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#43

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Apr 02, 2016 3:48 pm

:lol: Better than Orly's ever accomplished.
For Thursday's hearing to take place in Harrisburg, Elliott had to inform Cruz he was being sued. Elliott did that by serving Cruz with a court summons during his campaign stop in Atlanta.

"How did Sen. Cruz feel when you served him in Atlanta?" Pellegrini asked.

Elliott said he paid a processing server, who arrived several hours early to make sure he could shake Cruz's hand. When they shook, the server said: "You've been served."
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/p ... story.html
Photo: In honor of Lt Root Beer! Support the 699th: https://www.facebook.com/Imperial-Illum ... 259897297/
Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS?]

#44

Post by bob » Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:00 pm

P&E(!): Exclusive: The Post & Email Interviews Pennsylvania Eligibility Challenger on Cruz Ballot Objection:
“WHERE YOU’RE BORN MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE”

A researcher who describes himself as “a social justice warrior” and “very politically active,” Elliott told The Post & Email of his work thus far, “I put a lot of effort into it to make sure I crafted something that was legally worthy. When things rub me the wrong way, such as this issue regarding Ted Cruz’s eligibility because he was born in Canada, I relied on the groundwork I had already done regarding McCain, because he was born in Panama. So I had already broken the ground in how to research these things and prepare legal documents. I was just refreshing myself and delving into Pennsylvania statutes.”

In 2008, Elliott filed an eligibility challenge against McCain in Commonwealth Court yielding a similar outcome to his current case, although he did not pursue it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In order to file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, Elliott has set up a GoFundMe page seeking to raise $3,200. He has spoken with several attorneys who might be able to lend their assistance going forward, and the funds raised will pay for filing fees and other court costs.

Elliott said he “was not surprised” at nor deterred by the opinion issued on Thursday “because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is in such disarray. There are two or three justices who have resigned or are under ethical scrutiny right now. As a result, one of my attorneys said that he doubted that any one of them would go out on a limb by saying that despite how good my briefs were that Cruz is ineligible, because they would be held under a microscope. They would be somewhat embarrassed by it,” Elliott explained.

I’m not going into the ‘parents’ issue; all I’m going to cover is the ‘where-you’re-born’ issue,” Elliott told The Post & Email. “The first step in drafting a submission to the high court will be a Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to take up the issue, but it is so ripe for Supreme Court review. So many people have been saying that there should be a Supreme Court decision on this issue.”

He added that “The process of my case has allowed it to get to the doors of the Supreme Court; I’m going to try to knock on them.”

Elliott said that when he spoke with the court clerk on his McCain objection, he was told that courts “won’t make a decision that would disenfranchise millions of voters.” “He had already gone through most of the primary process when I initiated the case. When it finally got to the court, I think it was just before the convention. There were already millions of votes cast, and the clerk said, ‘No judge is going to overthrow millions of voters,’” Elliott recalled.
The ob. GoFundMe campaign, which has raised $335 ($3200 requested) so far -- a third of which has come from Kerchner. The page contains this interesting comment:
Rich Schaum wrote:Please consider the following that I state is the truth and nothing but it. It is improbable to have a BAR Member (Cruz) convicted of being a foreign impostor, in his own BAR Members court system by a Judge that is also a BAR member that does not honor the "Constitution FOR the United States", Law Of The Land. Please consider the oath they took was to enforce and uphold the "Constitution OF the United States", Law Of The Sea/Maritime Law which does not exist In Law or At Law. When in front of the Judge you may ask him or her to properly identify themselves asking for a copy of the oath they took. You then ask the Judge to read it aloud. When he gets to the part OF the United States you stop him as that oath is a fraud not existing In Law or At Law. The Constitution that represent the People (you and all of us) reads the Constitution FOR the United States. The judge must take a New Oath giving his allegiance to the Constitution FOR the United States so we can proceed. Or the Judge is also a Foreign Impostor and enemy of the People. Your enforcement is letting the people know of this and they selecting a county Sheriff sworn in under the New oath FOR the United States. Yes, I fly the Civil Flag not the War Flag
:crazy:

As noted, the Pennsylvania primary is April 26. So good luck getting this filed, calendared, and resolved by then.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#45

Post by bob » Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:34 pm

Dallas Morning News: Cruz birther seeks crowdfunding to take ballot challenge to Supreme Court:
After the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court ruling, two New York attorneys offered to help carry the case forward if he could cover their fees, Elliot said. An acquaintance suggested starting a campaign on crowdfunding website GoFundMe to raise the cash, and Elliott started his fundraiser Friday afternoon, asking for $3,200 for legal fees.

* * *

Though it is unlikely the case will move forward before Pennsylvania’s presidential primary, Elliott said he was optimistic the Supreme Court would take up the eligibility issue before the election.

“Time wasn’t a handicap in their Bush vs. Gore decision – they did that very quickly,” he said, though he acknowledged that after the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, “it might be problematic.”

Elliott’s is not the only case that could see further action – federal cases in Alabama and Texas are also ongoing.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#46

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:59 am

I think I see a major roadblock here. The suit at hand was (ONLY)about the PA primary, and the filer lost in PA, and the only option he has now is either appeals or USSC, but the issue will still be "eligibility to run in the PA primary" unless I misread the filing. I doubt if they can get to either court before the primary let alone get a ruling. Unless I misread it, once the primary is over the issue, reason they filed, will be moot. I do not believe then that at they point they have anything they can go forward with as an appealable issue. The state primary issue will be moot and dead at that point will it not.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28929
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#47

Post by Foggy » Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:20 am

Not.

The Supreme Court is the last and best bulwark against blatant violations of the United States Constitution. Their job - their only real job - is to protect the Constitution from evildoers, particularly the most evil evildoers of all, Obots and Cruzbots. If they cared - if they cared even a tiny bit about this great nation - they would ignore all the little technical and procedural technicalities, convene a Supreme Grand Jury and a Supreme Court of Bun-Dogs, indict and convict thousands of Americans, erect dozens of gallows on the National Mall, and proceed to implement the biggest bloodbath in American history. Once they get started, no reason not to execute all Democrats, along with a majority of Republicans and a whole lot of Independents.

That's the Official Birther Dream, and they're stickin' with it. :thumbs:
I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 10183
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#48

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:49 pm

:lol: Foggy, right because it's working out so well for them!

And look at this, these morons donated $720 on his GoFundMe :brickwallsmall: Almost Tracy Fair territory. How does The Fogbow get in on this action?

Elliott v Cruz SCOTUS Petition
17
PITTSBURGH, PA
$720 of $3,200

Image
Photo: In honor of Lt Root Beer! Support the 699th: https://www.facebook.com/Imperial-Illum ... 259897297/
Don't miss The Fogbow's Favorite TV Show starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: From Not To Hot!"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27215
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#49

Post by bob » Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:58 pm

Orlylicious wrote:And look at this, these morons donated $720 on his GoFundMe :brickwallsmall:
Up to $905 now; the last donation was 9 days ago.

"For the record," Pennsylvania votes in 6 days.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12863
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#50

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:11 pm

So, once the primary happens, then does the current complaint not become moot as far as the courts are concerned and any actions he contemplates be dismissed for mootness?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”