Read on Twitter
The Response from Pennsylvania state defendants makes little significant effort to defend the adoption of "mail-in" voting by statute, and includes some "laugh out loud" claims like the pending effort to pass a constitutional amendment has NOTHING to do with mail-in voting.
The Response is focused in large measure on simply dissuading the Court from considering the claims raised on their merits -- with a good deal of fear-mongering about the implications of imposing a remedy like the one sought by the Plaintiffs.
That seems to ignore the fact that it is the US Supreme Court which has issued decisions for 230+ years that have made dynamic changes to the manner in which we are governed. But I remain concerned that the Court's fear that it's order might be ignored by partisan actors...
thereby undermining the authority of the Court as an institution, is a key consideration that might stop it from granting retrospective relief that is being sought. I would not be surprised by a decision that resolves all the issues on the merits against Pennsylvania but ....
ultimately decides that the relief sought is not available or justified. https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/08/pennsylvanias-response-ordered-by-justice-alito-reflects-fear-on-the-defendants-part-of-what-might-be-coming-n291061
