Biden Blasted for Unprecedented Support of Islamic Terrorism
Kristi Noem's Dog Killing Fiasco Keeps Getting Worse
Ex-Palestinian Militant Obliterates Pro-Hamas Stooge on Piers Morgan's Show
RFK, Jr: My Brain Was Eaten By Worms But I'll Be Fine If...
Pro-Hamas Supporters Tried Ambushing a GOP Congresswoman. She Shut Them Down.
Biden’s a Boon for America’s Foes
Bibi Ignores Biden
'Commonsense Fails' Yet Again in Senate, Scott Says After Sanders Blocks His Antisemitism...
NY Reaches ‘Historic’ DEI Milestone During JFK Airport Construction
Here's What Lawmakers Are Planning Should ICC Issue Arrest Warrants Against Israeli Offici...
This Has Never Been About Justice
Why Communism and Socialism Fail
That's Some Wishful Thinking for Biden to Claim 'the Polling Data Has Been...
It Looks Like Jamaal Bowman Is STILL a Conspiracy Theorist
Defying Odds, Biden Figures Out a Way to Make Federal Permitting Law Even...
Tipsheet

Sen. Cruz Urges Emergency Appeal on Pennsylvania Court Challenge

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

An appeals court recently ruled that the Trump campaign cannot stop the certification of their election results. Joe Biden won the state by about 2 percent, according to the AP. But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is urging the Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal on a Pennsylvania election challenge, citing concerns about statewide mail-in voting enacted by the state legislature.

Advertisement

Cruz shared the statement on his Twitter page.

Cruz blamed the Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court for the change, and argued why it deserves to be analyzed.

"The appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the range in the middle of the game," he wrote. "If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so."

"In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called 'laches,' which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge," he continues. "But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now."

"Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they've delayed too long. The result of the court's gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged"

Advertisement

You can read his full statement here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement