Replies

From the response, p.22:

Having directed the selection of presidential electors by popular vote in Pennsylvania, the General Assembly choosing its own slate of electors ex post would be unconstitutional. Kelly v. Commonwealth, 2020 WL 7018314, *5 (Pa., Nov. 28, 2020) (Wecht, J., concurring). “There is no basis in [state] law by which the courts may grant [a] request to ignore the results of an election and recommit the choice to the General Assembly to substitute its preferred slate of electors for the one chosen by a majority of Pennsylvania's voters.” Id. at 3. The “General Assembly ‘directed the manner’ of appointing presidential electors by popular vote nearly a century ago.” Ibid. (quoting U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2). There is nothing in the Election Code that 23 permits the General Assembly to “circumvent [this method and] to substitute its preferred slate of electors for that ‘elected by the qualified electors of the Commonwealth.’” Id. at 4 (quoting 25 P.S. § 3191). For the General Assembly to “alter that ‘method of appointment’” would require new legislation, done “in accordance with constitutional mandates, including presentment of the legislation to the governor to sign or veto.” Ibid. (quoting McPherson, 146 U.S. at 25).

This is utterly laughable.

The US Constitution Trumps (C W I D T ?) *ALL* State Law, and the Constitution says the Legislature alone can determine the manner of choosing electors.

Look at the first several pages of the pleading.

ALL SJW-foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric.

Example (formatting *mine*):

"Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees.

Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront [sic] to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections.

Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical 2 analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated."

The pleading itself is a mixture of

"You're not the boss of ME"
and
"It's TOO LATE, suckers!"
and
"Every case has lost so far or been dismissed. So THERE!"

I greatly apprehensive that we're headed for Civil War, folks.

The pleading itself is a mixture of "You're not the boss of ME" and "It's TOO LATE, suckers!" and "Every case has lost so far or been dismissed. So THERE!"

Oh my!

Thanks to you all for reading and explaining!

This is *verified*. A bunch of ~~Chicom~~ blue states are submitting their own brief.

Stock up *NOW*.

:: For the General Assembly to “alter that ‘method of appointment’” would require new legislation ::

Did they NOT critically review what they wrote down?
Alter the method...require new legislation.
The confess their guilt in the response.

Oh, my!
- h/t/ G. Takei

Except we KNOW that President Trump is enormously popular. The other side may be far far weaker than they look. We can hope. It’s all we’ve got.