Is There Another Scenario That Makes Justice Alito's Dec. 9 Response Date Meaningful in Different Way?
By Shipwreckedcrew | Dec 05, 2020 2:15 PM ET
I’ve spent some time reading comments to this story I wrote yesterday as well as many other legal analysts’ views on what — if anything — can be divined from the fact that Justice Samuel Alito ordered the State of Pennsylvania and other defendants to respond by December 9 to the action filed by GOP Congressman Mike Kelly seeking to declare unlawful the “no excuse” mail-in voting scheme used in the November election.
In my story yesterday I noted that the due date for the opposition papers is one day after the last day on which the Pennsylvania electors could be named based on the election results as certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and that there is currently no court order which prevents that from happening. As some have noted, the end of the “safe harbor” period — December 8 — is simply a date established by Congress by which a state benefits if all election disputes are settled and the outcome is certified by the state at least six days prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. The states are not required to meet this deadline, it only provides that certain challenges to a state’s naming of electors will not be entertained if the state does meet the deadline.
What many have correctly noted is that this “safe harbor” provision has no legal effect on what the Supreme Court can do if it were to find merit in any election challenge it chooses to hear. Until the Electoral College actually meets and votes, the Court possesses the authority to issue an injunction preventing the electors from any particular state from being able to lawfully participate on the basis that the manner of their selection was legally invalid.
...
READ MORE: https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/05/is-there-another-scenario-that-makes-justice-alitos-dec-8-response-date-meaningful-in-different-way-n289672