Someone Should Tell That Bucks County Dem Where She Can Shove Her Shoddy...
Jon Stewart Rips Into Dems for Their Obnoxious Sugar-Coating of the 2024 Election
Trump's Border Czar Issues a Warning to Dem Politicians Pledging to Shelter Illegal...
Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK?
Remember Those Two Jordanians Who Tried to Infiltrate a Marine Corps Base? Well…
Celebrate Diversity (Or Else)!
Journos Now Believe the Liar Trump When Convenient, and Did Newsweek Provide the...
To Vet or Not to Vet
It's Hard to Believe the US Needs Legislation This GOP Senator Just Introduced,...
Trump: From 'Fascist' to 'Let's Do Lunch'
Newton's Third Law of Politics
Religious Belief and the 2024 Election
Restoring American Strength and Security with Trump’s Cabinet Picks
Linda McMahon to Education May Choke Foreign Influence Operations on Campus
Unburden Us From the Universities
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