Apparently, you are not familiar with the legal situation. But to your question, no.
I'm sorry but you have no clue what you are talking about. I guess you believed the fake news, didn't you.
If there is one thing we have learned about Trump supporters over the past four years, it is that they are master projectionists. Given the absurd propaganda you've been spreading on these forums, it's utterly laughable that you would presume to lecture others about "fake news."
Well, I have the facts and apparently you don't. Pennsylvania Act 77 passed in 2019 absolutely requires that all Pennsylvanians can vote by mail but absolutely requires that all ballots be received on election day by 8:00 pm. Furthermore the sections of Act 77 are nonseverable which would disqualify all mail in ballots leaving only election day votes. "If any provision of this act or it's application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void." Guess what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did? Yes, they voided the entire act. I'm guessing you believed the fake news New York Times, that said the US Supreme Court ruled on this, didn't you? Well, I have bad news for you. The New York Times lied to you, as they are so frequently want to do. If the PA Supreme's declared the 77 unconstitutional they would have been golden, but they changed the law which voided it. Well the US Supremes didn't grant the request to have the review expedited because they got it on October 28th. In fact the Supremes promised to review the PA Court decision. That means all those mail in votes, go away in PA. So I'd recommend you stop reading the fake news New York Times.
I'll make four quick points.
1. It was widely reported in reputable news sources like the New York Times that the Supreme Court would not stop Pennsylvania officials from accepting ballots that arrive after November 3, but that they might indeed choose to weigh in on the matter after the election.
In Pennsylvania, the biggest fight has been over ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive later. In September, the state Supreme Court ruled, over Republican objections, that election officials could accept ballots arriving up to three days later. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intercede, but left open the possibility that it could revisit the question.
So you're either misinformed or you've chosen to lie about this. Neither option is a good look.
2. The ballots which arrive after November 3 are not part of the announced count that has propelled Biden into the lead in that state. In other words, Biden likely will not need these late-arriving ballots to claim victory. Now that seems like a crucial piece of information, doesn't it? Why didn't you know about it?
3. Even if the ballots do become important, there is the legal principle known as reliance interest, which protects voters relying on instructions they received on how to vote legally. There is a strong legal case to be made here in support of Pennsylvania, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume how the Supreme Court would eventually rule, should it come to that.
4. It's frankly disturbing how ready and eager Trump supporters are to arbitrarily disenfranchise people over an issue like late-arriving mail, particularly when the Post Office was deliberately sabotaged by one of Trump's cronies to slow down the mail. It's important to keep this in mind because it demonstrates we are dealing with people who prioritize winning at any cost over the democratic values that are fundamental to the success of our nation.