Main Menu

Pennsylvania prediction poll

What’s going to happen when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviews the Elliott v. Cruz decision? Judge Pellegrini ruled that the question of Cruz’ eligibility was justiciable and that Cruz was a natural born citizen. The decision has been appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

I think that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will:

  • Affirm the lower court's decision. (52%, 34 Votes)
  • Rule that the case is not justiciable. (35%, 23 Votes)
  • Bar Cruz from the ballot due to ineligibility (9%, 6 Votes)
  • Allow Cruz on the ballot because his eligibility is uncertain. (5%, 3 Votes)

Total Voters: 66

Loading ... Loading ...

And the winner is (both in voting here and at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court):

Affirm the lower court’s decision

In a per curiam decision (a decision in the name of the court), the lower court’s decision was affirmed. This means that the lower court had jurisdiction, and that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

 

, , , ,

13 Responses to Pennsylvania prediction poll

  1. avatar
    Keith March 28, 2016 at 3:08 am #

    I can’t say I’m clear on the meaning of “justiciable”, however I suspect it means that the issue is fit to be decided in court as opposed to being a political question.

    If I understand the questions put to the court, 1) can the an ineligible candidate be denied a place on the ballot? and 2) is Rafael Cruz an eligible candidate? then the answer as the lower court found is Yes and Yes. I expect the PSC will affirm.

    IANAL, but I doubt that the lower court would be wrong about the justiciability under Pennsylvania law.

  2. avatar
    bob March 28, 2016 at 1:27 pm #

    Keith:
    IANAL, but I doubt that the lower court would be wrong about the justiciability under Pennsylvania law.

    In 2012, a Commonwealth Court had no problem dismissing an eligibility challenge.

  3. avatar
    Dog Gone March 29, 2016 at 10:36 am #

    I am surprised the PA Supreme Court would bother with this, but I don’t see a reasonable case to be made that Cruz’s mother was not a US citizen when he was born, or the court overturning that he is eligible as a candidate.

    The larger question then is will this have any influence on other such cases in other states? I think these people are as much cranks as Orly Taitz ever was.

  4. avatar
    Joey March 29, 2016 at 6:25 pm #

    Keith:
    I can’t say I’m clear on the meaning of “justiciable”, however I suspect it means that the issue is fit to be decided in court as opposed to being a political question.

    If I understand the questions put to the court, 1) can the an ineligible candidate be denied a place on the ballot? and 2) is Rafael Cruz an eligible candidate? then the answer as the lower court found is Yes and Yes. I expect the PSC will affirm.

    IANAL, but I doubt that the lower court would be wrong about the justiciability under Pennsylvania law.

    You’re right on the money. There are usually three basic elements of justiciability: 1) Political question. Article 3 Standing, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mootness and ripeness (timeliness) can be additional considerations.

  5. avatar
    gorefan March 30, 2016 at 11:59 am #

    Presidential candidate wants to intervene in Pennsylvania case.

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/306293455/Intervention-Filing-Opposing-Ted-Cruz-Ballot-Access-by-Victor-Williams-Candidate-for-Pres-in-PA

  6. avatar
    Joey March 31, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirms Cruz’s eligibility to be president
    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/pennsylvania-supreme-court-affirms-cruzs-eligibility-to-be-president.html/

  7. avatar
    bob March 31, 2016 at 3:48 pm #

    I’m a little surprised that it affirmed, rather than ruling that the lower court lacked jurisdiction. But I’m not surprised at all by the end result.

  8. avatar
    Daniel March 31, 2016 at 3:55 pm #

    Happy to be wrong with that result lol

  9. avatar
    gorefan March 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm #

    bob:
    I’m a little surprised that it affirmed, rather than ruling that the lower court lacked jurisdiction.But I’m not surprised at all by the end result.

    By affirming does that mean in Pennsylvania Cruz is definitely a natural born citizen?

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2016 at 5:51 pm #

    Cruz eligibility controversy article at the Constitution Center:

    http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/03/constitution-check-is-ted-cruzs-eligibility-for-the-presidency-a-serious-issue/

  11. avatar
    bob March 31, 2016 at 5:53 pm #

    gorefan: By affirming does that mean in Pennsylvania Cruz is definitely a natural born citizen?

    Technically, no: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not issue a published opinion; its order in this case has no precedential value beyond the parties.

    Practically speaking: Yes. The lower court expressly said Cruz was a natural-born citizen, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that ruling.

  12. avatar
    Reality Check March 31, 2016 at 8:22 pm #

    The Supreme Court took the easy option and affirmed.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 1, 2016 at 9:23 pm #

    The Wagner case in Utah challenging Cruz was dismissed for lack of standing–no specific harm.