I just picked this up at Zerohedge:
Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene
Recall that there's been a lot of speculation on what was behind the original deadline that was set one day after the expiration of the Safe Harbor deadline. Some argued that this meant there was no majority on the SCOTUS to hear the case on its merits, and so Alito was allowing the case to "die on the vine." Others, however, spurred by William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection (and others), argued that Alito was not one to play such games--that there must be something else going on behind the scenes. This is an especially important consideration because, as Jacobson (and the others) have maintained (IMO, FWIW, correctly), in the case of a fraudulent election the SCOTUS is not bound by the statutory Safe Harbor provision. Thus, Jacobson argued that the extended deadline was simply to allow the SCOTUS justices to write their opinions up, since the PA reply was very unlikely to raise issues that the justices would not have long since anticipated--they could hardly have been interested in what PA would reply. We can only speculate--has one of the justices come around to Alito's way of thinking (Alito and three other justices were in favor of addressing the substantive issues before the election)? Have the justices finished writing? We'll find out soon enough, because Alito moved the deadline up one day--to Tuesday the 8th, which is the Safe Harbor deadline. Here's Zerohedge in excerpt:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results.
Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.
Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requires that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime.
In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.
According to Kelly's filing, the 'no-excuse mail-in' voting scheme should only apply in a limited number of circumstances, and that people must vote in person unless a narrow list of excuses applies. Thus, Act 77 and related election access laws should be invalidated - along with votes cast under it in the 2020 election.