I thought Sekulow was going to argue this, anyone know what happened there?
This is not the Presidents’ case against PA. This is Congressman Kelly’s case
Not saying Sekulow wouldn’t do a bad job, but Cruz enjoys a level of respect unmatched ny virtually any SCOTUS litigant.
Cruz has a knowledge of the Constitution pretty unmatched by anyone in the country. He is so respected, there has to be at least four Justices who will want to hear from him.
Sekulow will probably go to SCOTUS. This is one of MANY petitions.
I’ll be happy as long as Sekulow is involved in crafting the arguments, whether he presents them or not.
I do think that, as a result of the PAL’s decision to not act, while addressing their concern about a practice of fraud that leaves them unable to act legitimately... is that the controversy has been narrowed to a laser like focus.
This will be the opposite of Florida 2000. No muddle here.
As the case is Kelly’s, though, Cruz’ participation has additional impact for two reasons...
Others already noting the “gravitas” issue that tends to debunk media claims of “nothing to see here”... when a senior sitting U.S. Senator argues the case... and one must naturally assume he does so with the backing of the Republican majority + Pence.
But, also, the FACT that Cruz is a Senator ? Sort of answers the question of whether or not there will be one Rep and one Sen willing to inform the President of the Senate, in writing, and without argument, that there is a dispute over the process applied and the result in selection of the Pennsylvania electors.
It suggests that WHEN Cruz presents that protest... he will do so with the full backing of the opinion of the Supreme Court...
I am hopeful they will get to the root of the issue... and dispose of the argument that MOST dictates that corruption rules us. That issue is the conflict between the appearance of integrity and the fact of it... presented by the left as lying about the fraud being necessary to defend democracy with a grant of the illusion of integrity, rather than requiring the fact of it. SCOTUS debunking the importance of the “appearance” of integrity... to require insistence on the fact of it... would chop through the root of the origin of corruption in politics.
Has Jordan been before SCOTUS in the past?