One more time for the Channel nine first one to weather forecast. We have rain, you'll taper off later this afternoon. Partly cloudy all day with I sixty eight clouds over night dry though forty seven MARA mostly cloudy sky's isolated showers maybe mid day fifty five for the high cloudy and cooler overnight one nine to thirty four. Thursday is going to be a higher forty with mostly cloudy skies and a possible rain slash snow chance fifty eight. Right now, time for final traffick Chuck Ingram.
From the U SEE Traffic Center. Are you one of the thirty eight million Americans impacted by diabetes? Get personalized education and treatment options from the experts that you see help learn more at you see help dot com. Cruis are working with an accident. Northbound seventy five near Galbret. Traffic backs into Saint Bernard inbound Combombia Park. White left lanes blocked off just before you got to Fort Washington Way. There's a reqquest two seventy five is ramped to northbound
seventy one. Chuck Ingram, fifty five KRC the talk station.
It is eight forty five. I think you have per c DE talk station. You're looking for great lawyers really on Porter right, you can find them a line at Porter right. That's where you're gonna find Steve Gooden, who practices with them. He's a partner there. He's in well complex commercial litigation primarily. But we always love to get Steve Gooden on the program to talk about things legal
in a conversation we've been having all morning. Maybe feels like you listen to the Morning Show all day, a little bit of beating a dead horse because I started out of the gate with it at five o'clock. We just talked about it with the Bright Parts Insights Scoop,
Nick Gilberts and the Capitol Hill Reporter. But Steve Gooden, welcome to the Morning Show to talk about this unbelievable reality going on in Pennsylvania with these election board officers that are just in it out loud, almost joyfully, basically saying it doesn't matter anymore about the law.
The law.
We violate the law all the time, so screw you guys. We're gonna count these votes even though it violates the law. In Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court had to come back in pennscyl from Pennsylvania and smack him down yet again. Welcome back, Steve Gooden.
Good morning, Brian. What did you did you really they're saying the quiet part out loud, aren't they They're saying the quiet part out loud.
Couldn't believe it this this commissioner Elis mar Seglia. I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn't matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws anytime they want. So for me, if I violate the law, it's because I want a court to pay attention to it. Well, Steve, that's one thing. If the thing that if the dispute, the underlying issue at hand, had not been resolved, even like in the distant past, this is just recently resolved.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said explicitly that what they were doing was illegal or what did not count, and that these ballots that they were counting were not to be counted, and yet they did it anyway. It's like a breakdown of the system.
Well, Marre's an even scary part of this. She got three votes on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to support her decision. It was a four to three decision, which is I think the most remarkable thing here that isn't being talked about. You're right, I mean, she made this kind of bizarre argument that there's some language in the Pennsylvania State Constitution that says there shall be no impediment to voting whatsoever in the state. But of course this is an act
of their legislature. Is it arguably out of date? Maybe? I mean, I think the whole issue is, you know, whether or not you signed the David your absentee ballot. It's definitely a holdover from the days when you really had to get permission to vote absentee, as opposed to the current kind of no fault absentee regimen we have. Back when I was in the Army, you had to actually apply to vote absentee and explain why you were not in Ohio to vote, and this is sort of
a holdover from that. But all said, she got three votes. There's a four to three decision to just blatantly go against the law. It she actually says the law should be changed, and I was okay, then go to the legislature and change it. She's even acknowledging it exists.
That's what courts are supposed to do. I mean, this is the whole idea of judicial activism versus you know, judicial conservatism. Maybe they were pointing out to the legislative body, which maybe should have happened a long time ago, back in twenty twenty, when they just played fast and loose with all the laws in Pennsylvania that look, you guys can change this, but it is the legislature's job to do it. It's not my job. My job as a judge is to read what this section says and apply
the law accordingly. And the law requires these signatures, and these states ergo. If they don't have them, they can't be counted legislative brands. You're up next.
That's it. I think that's exactly right. And this comes at a horrible time, really, because we really are you know, we come out of the twenty twenty election when there were there's a lot of folks who didn't believe that the votes were counted properly, that there were shenanigans at the state level. I don't believe it was ever proven, but there were a lot of people out there who believe it. It was really kind of what was the us behind the January sixth, you know issues, and now here.
You know, we get through this election and it seems to be like this general you know, kind of recovery from that mindset, like we have a popular vote winner, we have an electoral vote winner. Would they're not split for once? And now we have a local elected election official here on the back end saying, oh, by the way, we don't really follow the law all the time, and we're not going to hide it. We're going to talk about it, and I'm going to get three parties in
Supreme Court justices to back me in my state. And that, you know, that's really bad for the system, bad for the belief in our electoral system, and just a really really bad day all the way around. I wish, I wish they just abide a bit of law and if they had an issue with it, they can have gone to their state legislature and introduced to bill telling me the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Shapiro is sighting with the Republicans of the Supreme Court saying they don't count
the ballots. He seems to try the winds blowing on this.
Well, he certainly does. And that's the way it should be. And you know, the almost the second layer of nefarious, at least from my standpoint. I don't care that three of the Supreme Court justices, you know, try to justify this. But the law says what it says. This was over four hundred and five votes. Now, the winner of the race was the Republican and he's he's ahead by much larger than the point five percent margin that would require
a recount. And so my thought was that what this particular county was doing, and trying to perhaps encourage others to do it count the votes that should not be
counted under Pennsylvania law. And if we can go around in all the various counties and gather up one hundred here, one hundred there, we might be able to close that gap, end up with less than point five percent separation between the two of them, and during a recount then engage in more Shenanigans and result in a different outcome of the election.
Well, it's a pretty fair reading of it. I mean, they're doing exactly what Trump was accused to do it. You know, they claim that Trump, you know, told the Georgia Secretary of State get me x number of you know, clothes there, and this this feels like another instant of that kind of Trump's arrangement syndrome where they're doing what they thought he was doing, which is finding the votes in a close race. I mean, you're right, I mean
I understand it. McCormick's up seventeen thousand. You know, Trump won Pennsylvania pretty handily. He and almost by two points, like a one point eight points, so it's not unexpected that the senator on the red ticket would win as well, you know Casey, Senator bobcase even sort of an endangered species there in Pennsylvania, I think for the you know, since his last term six years ago when he was last elected. So none of this is really a surprise. None of this is outside of what the Poland was
or what the other national results were. So the idea that there are these local officials are you know, almost calling out for other local officials to join the meres a really kind of bad day. And I hope it gets the look that's going to get. I understand that there are some federal laws it's been filed today on both sides to try to give another look at this, so we'll see where that goes.
Well, federal law sits I mean, will this even be in is there a federal jurisdiction for this, because this is state law, and I know the federal laws govern federal elections. But since this states dictate the terms of conditions of their own elections, will this ever see the light of a federal court hearing or I mean it wouldn't go to the Supreme Court? What it's zee?
Yeah, but well believed it or not, there is a possibility for that. Back in twenty sixteen, he actually had a federal lawsuit proud here in the Southern District in Hamilton County before Judge Susan de Lott regarding keeping some
of the polls open. If you recall, and there's a kind of a trivity question now, but there was multiple traffic accidents on election day in two thousand and six, and they went to court saying, hey, this this implicates the federal constitutional right to cast your ballot, not just
the state constitutional right. So if they if they can fast some sort of federal constitutional argument that we are depriving, that the folks in Pennsylvania are being deprived of their right to vote because of this requirement, I could see a district court at least giving them a hearing whether
it goes anywhere or not. I can't fathom that. But as long as you kind of complying something to talk about, generally speaking in the US Constitution about the right to vote, then yes, you can argue that there's concurrent your station. The Act saw that year back in twenty sixteen, and the judge actually did order the polls to stay open an hour later because of the various traffic accidents on the highway, so that she ruled would have could have impacted there, like to cast it out, I think that
decision was never appealed. It didn't really matter in that race. I mean, Trump lost Hamilton County handily anyway, but had it been a close election, that would have gotten a lot of scrutiny for the Sixth Circuit.
Well, and real quick here, Stephen, I don't put you on the spot because I don't know if you know the answer to the question. I certainly don't. But I saw that there was an election judge charged in Minnesota with two felony counts because he allegedly let eleven people vote that were not registered. Do you know if there's any corollary provision in Pennsylvania where these these election officials in defiance of Supreme Court precedent, in defiance of the
law of the state allowed this to happen. Nonetheless, that they might might have might be facing some sort of charges.
You know, it's possible. I did quickly look at that. In Pennsylvania does not have anything as on point Anton ractice in Minnesota law, but they do have a general kind of dereliction of duty criminal charges you can file against an elected official. And it's interesting the woman who made the statement, she's an elected official. I mean she is not just an elections official. She's actually a county commissioner there in Bucks County, excuse me, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
So you know, she has multiple obligations as an elected official tour of like here in Hamilton County, you know where you know, an elected divisional can serve on the board named by the party. Fair enough, special could be removed as a commissioner as well.
All right, well, we'll keep our popcorn out on the federal side as well as what happens are on the state side. But it is resolved and it's over with, and at least the governor's on board with well the law. Steve Gooden always appreciate you coming on the morning show to share your legal opinions and thoughts and analysis. Porterwright dot com is where you find Steve and the excellent
legal team that he works with there. Steve, You're always welcome on the show and I'll look forward to another discussion with you real soon.
Look forward to it.
Thank you, Bra, Thanks brother. It is eight fifty five. Come on eighty fifty six. You need to get a chance to listen, get the empower you seminar It's Thursday, starts early at six point thirty to party, get your drink on and get your orders and food on and then hear the lecture on Elvis Presley by Michael Mercier and the band which will kick in at eight o'clock
after the seminar. If you're there two twenty five North and Boulevard to celebrate Live inside Scoop with Bright Bart News Nick Gilbertson on this most recent topic with Steve Gooden podcast fifty five kr sea dot com and a not real uplifting analysis, but a valuable analysis from Daniel Davis with a deep dive that's at fifty five krs dot com at well as well. Tune in tomorrow for the brilliance of Jack Atherton and Judge Ennita paul Atano. Thank you Joe Strecker for all that you do. Folks,
don't go away. Clembeck's coming right up.
Look what it happened.
This is the greatest political comment comeback of all time. There's ever been two, three, four times today fifty five krc D Talk station