On February 23, the 3-judge U.S. District Court that is hearing the case on Pennsylvania U.S. House district boundaries refused to issue any immediate order disturbing the new boundaries that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had imposed last week. But it will consider doing that at a hearing on March 9, at 11 a.m. in Harrisburg. Here is the 3-page order.
It is peculiar that nothing was said in the order about the primary petition requirements. Pennsylvania requires U.S. House candidates to collect 1,000 signatures of party members. Petitioning for U.S. House primary candidates starts on Tuesday, February 27. But how can candidates collect signatures if they don’t know the boundaries of their districts? The petitions are due March 20.
Petitioning for primary ballots for other office this year runs from February 13 through March 6. The State Supreme Court moved the petitioning period for U.S. House, but even the relaxed dates for that office aren’t late enough.
Since when do non-incumbent candidates count and esp the mere voters ???
POWER of the INCUMBENT HACKS — like divine right of kings.
—
PR and AppV
Not good news for the Republicans.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the filing and petition dates moved, as part of the order when they dictated the new map.
thank you, Jim.
To be fair, the Acting Secretary of Commonwealth and the State Elections director had requested the change. They were formally defendants in the state action (they had been enjoined from conducting the election under the legislatively-enacted map, and have been ordered to conduct the election under the court-dictated map.
They are the formal defendants in the federal case, since the citizen plaintiffs are seeking to prevent the state Supreme Court from usurping power.
One more gerrymander WARS battle — since the 1200s —
English House of Commons formed in 1200s —
700 plus years of gangster oligarchs — aka special interest LOOTER gangs.
Earlier serfs.
Now tax/govt debt slaves.
—
PR and AppV
State officials were not the “formal” defendants in the state case. They were defendants, as were some of the new federal “formal” plaintiffs. The new federal case pits the losing defendants in the state case against their co-losing-defendants in that same case. It is what we call friendly litigation, which is impermissible in federal court. It provides another reason for the federal court to dismiss the suit.
The PA gerrymander wars stuff (Donkeys vs Elephants) is like watching the commies vs nazis in street battles in Germany in 1929-1933 — which EXTREMIST gangsters get to control the regime.
PR and AppV
The Acting Secretary of Commonwealth and the Elections Commissioner were defendants in a clerical role, administering elections. They took no position on the actual litigation and did not offer a map. The governor and lieutenant governor were adversarial to the legislative leaders.
None of the plaintiffs in the federal action were defendants in the state litigation.
May the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ignore the US Constitution and due process? Does the fact that they are “supreme” put them above the law?
“None of the plaintiffs in the federal action were defendants in the state litigation.” The same lawyers are representing both the losing Republican Party state-court defendants who now seek relief in the Supreme Court and the now-federal Republican Party plaintiffs who seek relief in the federal district court. Both sets are agents for the state legislature (Turzai and Scarnati in the state court and Corman and Former in the federal court) and are very likely agents for the Republican Party (if that matters). That means that the state legislature and likely the Republican Party are involved in both cases, in the first state-court proceeding as a defendant and in the latter as a plaintiff. They are the same party for purposes of identifying the real party in interest and are all in privity for purposes of preclusion principles and the ban on friendly litigation. Even if they are not, preclusion principles dictate that once a state has unsuccessfully defended a state law all others are precluded from challenging that unsuccessful defense in separate proceedings. See Lance v. Dennis (2006).
STATIST CONTROL FREAK GANG L VS STATIST CONTROL FREAK GANG R.
THINK STALIN VS HITLER 1941-1945.
WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON ??? DUH.
———
PR AND APPV
— REGARDLESS OF ALL GANGSTER CONTROL FREAKS
— AND THE SMALL ARMIES OF LAWYERS SUPPORTING BOTH GANGS.
It does not matter if the same lawyers are involved. The same lawyers represented the plaintiffs in the North Carolina state and federal litigation. And in that instance, the claims were the same in both the federal and state courts, other than the federal litigation dropped the state claims.
The Speaker of the House, the Senate President Pro Tem, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the (Acting) Secretary of the Commonwealth, and the Elections Commissioner were named. The Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem were named in their capacity as the chief officers of the General Assembly (See Article II, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution).
Corman is not an agent of the General Assembly. Former is not an agent of the General Assembly. The other plaintiffs are not agents of the General Assembly.
The federal suit is not claiming that the districts passed by the legislature are lawful.
May the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ignore the US Constitution and due process?
The PA gerrymander case is yet another example of NOT following *regular order*
— see the near total breakdown in the gerrymander USA Congress about all sorts of subjects – annual budget bills, etc.
The tyrant usual suspects exploit such breakdowns —
that is what they do — for 6,000 plus years.
—
PR and AppV
Agency law 101. Preclusion law 101.
Also, North Carolina involved parallel cases. PA does not. It involves losers trying to change their loss by filing a second suit.
Are the legislative actions of each State Supreme Court any different from the legislative actions of SCOTUS in all sorts of subject areas
— ie a total perversion / subversion of separation of powers
— to be *politically correct*, of course — aka TYRANT LAWLESS) ???
If PA is deemed gerrymander rotted – then see NC rot —
http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#NC
At stake in ALL the gerrymander cases — about 10-25 percent (at least) of USA economy / GDP —
BIG $$$ — in the $$$ TRILLIONS – who gets $$$ NET [looters] – who pays $$$ NET [tax slaves].
Here is my pop quiz for Agency 101.
1. Are the incumbent Republican congressmen who are seeking re-election, agents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
2. Are the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Senate President Pro Tem, (Acting) Secretary of the Commonwealth, and the Elections Commissioner, agents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
3. Are individual Republican legislators agents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one more artificial fictional *person* / something
— having some sort of area connection with a part of North America.
Same for all artificial fictional govt things on Mother Earth — since Adam and Eve.
See the arbitrary formation of the Brit colonies in North America via Brit charters in the 1500s-1700s.
How many regimes have come and gone (many by force] in the last 10,000 plus years ???
Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution reads:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
Congress has mandated that representatives generally be elected from single-member districts. The SCOTUS has interpreted Article 2, Section 2 to mean those districts be as equal in population as “practicable”.
Q. If Pennsylvania were not a party to the US Constitution, could/would its legislature delineate congressional district? May the Province of Ontario delineate congressional districts?
A. Of course not. The US Constitution grants to the Legislatures of the respective states the authority to draw congressional district. This authority is not granted to the State, but rather to the Legislature.
Note what happened in Pennsylvania, is clearly distinguishable from what happened in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Florida.
Gross failure to attack the use of SMD — 2 USC Sec 2c.
Basic gerrymander math again —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL
— since 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases.
Much worse before 1964.
—
2 USC Sec.2c. Number of Congressional Districts; number of Representatives from each District
In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
(Pub. L. 90–196, Dec. 14, 1967, 81 Stat. 581.)
—
What if a minority rule gerrymander State legislature fails to comply with such Sec. 2c ???
The courts do nothing ???
The gerrymander Congress makes the gerrymander USA Rep districts ???
The long coming (since 1776) gerrymander minority rule CRISIS is N-O-W.
PR and AppV
@DR,
2 USC 2a(3) would apply.
Would not the usual suspects attack 2 USC 2a(3) ???
— like they did in PA.
—
Did 2c 1967 repeal the earlier 2a 1929-1940 ???
— another case of the gerrymander hacks not caring what earlier laws say ???
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97771
PA SCT denies stay — 4-3 NO surprise
Possible stuff to Alito shortly – like this second or less ???
@DR,
See Branch v Smith (2003)
Branch v Smith, 538 US 254 (2003)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/254/case.pdf
Non-lawyers – have some aspirin ready for headaches if the mess is read.
2003 SCOTUS HACK MORONS COULD NOT DETECT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SINGULAR [AT LARGE] AND PLURAL [DISTRICTS] —
AND ESPECIALLY WHAT *O-N-L-Y* MEANS – IN ALL DICTIONARIES – SINCE PRINTING WAS INVENTED IN 1400s.
CAPS ADDED
In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to MORE THAN ONE Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of DISTRICTS equal to the number of REPRESENTATIVES to which such State is so entitled, and REPRESENTATIVES shall be elected O-N-L-Y from DISTRICTS so established, NO DISTRICT TO ELECT MORE THAN ONE REPRESENTATIVE
(except that a State which is entitled to MORE THAN ONE Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
(Pub. L. 90–196, Dec. 14, 1967, 81 Stat. 581.)
—
PERHAPS THE PA MESS WILL GIVE THE 2018 HACKS A CHANCE TO OVERRULE THE plurality opinions MESS IN Branch ???
NO mention in Branch about minority rule gerrymander math —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged districts [plural] = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Gee – a bit more *democracy* if ALL the Reps were elected at large
— with majority votes for each Rep ???
See the surviving at large elections for legislative bodies in smaller regimes – townships, villages, smaller cities — with the usual suspect minorities complaining about the lack of gerrymander districts.
See the multiple at large elections for USA Reps in 1932
— after the corrupt subversive NON-reapportionment of Reps in 1921-1922 after the 1920 Census
— lots of moving around in 1910-1920 due to cars and WW I
— lots more cars and moving around in roaring 20’s.
—
PR and AppV — to end the rule of the MORON HACKS – esp in SCOTUS.
The Branch case mess also gives the State gerrymander hacks (in all govt branches) a blank check regarding time deadlines regarding nominating petitions in any changed/rigged districts — starting and ending dates — in primaries and general elections — IE possible ZERO access for minor parties and independents.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/17A909.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/republican-lawmakers-return-court-pennsylvania-redistricting/
Back to SCOTUS — new case numbers — in red ink — symbolic ???
Has *only* had a change in definition since 1787-1789 ???
Art. III, Sec.3. Treason against the United States, shall consist >>> ONLY <<< in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
RE- only
The gang of 9 just issued an opinion in an immigration case that included some comments about *only if* in a law —
JENNINGS ET AL. v. RODRIGUEZ ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 15–1204. Argued November 30, 2016 — Reargued October 3, 2017—Decided February 27, 2018
Slip op — pp 19-22 about *only if*
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/17
Are there dictionaries for SCOTUS and totally separate dictionaries for mere humans ???
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=97931
Turzai 4 – 17A909 — 3rd above.
Alito wants response from PA Donkeys by next Monday.
@DR,
A federal district court could determine that (1) the 2011 districts are invalid based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision; (2) that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not provide an opportunity for the legislature to draw a new map; (3) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not have authority to draw a remedial map until the legislature failed to draw a new map, which they could not do, since they provided no opportunity for the legislature to do so; (4) that the federal court has no authority to draw a map, since there has been no finding that any map violates federal law (a federal district court rejected the claim that the 2011 map violates the US Constitution); and (5) Pennsylvania lost a representative in 2010; therefore 2 USC 2a(c)(5) applies, and will apply until lawful districts are drawn.
Note, it was a 6:3 desision that 2a(c)(5) was still valid.
The question then is whether the special election in so-called District 18 can be conducted on a district basis, or whether it must be a statewide-election.
THE CASE IS IN SCOTUS — WAY TOO LATE FOR ANY US DIST COURT MACHINATIONS —
PA PRIMARY TIME DEADLINES COMING.
EVEN THE SCOTUS HACKS PERIODICALY OVER-RULE THE MORE INSANE STUPID EARLIER JUNK MORON OPINIONS.
GEE- ARE THE PA ELEPHANTS SUPER-YELLING AT THE TOP ELEPHANT HACKS IN THE CONGRESS TO N-O-T — AT A-L-L COSTS — HAVE ANY AT-LARGE ELECTIONS FOR USA REPS IN PA ???
IE NUCLEAR OPTION IN THE SENATE TO STOP ANY DEBATES — AND HAVE A CRISIS *NOTWITHSTANDING LAW* TO HAVE ONLY GERRYMANDER SMD ELECTIONS FOR USA REPS — SINCE THE 1967 MORONS WERE TOO MORON STUPID / INCOMPETENT TO REPEAL ALL AT LARGE STUFF IN THE US CODE.
SEE BAN FEB 28 — FOR LATEST MACHINATIONS
The district court rejected the effort by the League of Women Voters and the National Democratic Party to intervene as defendants. It did say they could file amicus briefs.