SCOTUS Fri Morning Update

Freerepublic | 12/11/2020 | tarpit

[redgolum]

That it did.

At this stage of the end of the Republic, that is the best we can hope for.

[KevinB]

‘If there are other venues, the exclusive original jurisdiction would not apply, and the case would be denied.’

your understanding is absoutely correct; and, looking at this through the lens of reality, not likely that SCOTUS is going to delay the electors voting on Monday..

If you are the State of Texas and you are alleging that cheating in other states has diluted the votes of your citizens thereby depriving them of their right to equal protection of the law under the Constitution in what venue other than SCOTUS could you be heard?

[NEMDF]

But is the GOVERNOR breaking from the state, and he is supporting the defendants? He seems to be listed first on your grid. Sorry I don’t get it, and thank you for all of your work on this issue.

[tarpit]

You could be heard in the offending State’s court.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Scotusblog.org:

“In their final conference of 2020, the justices will meet privately on Friday to discuss pending petitions seeking the court’s review.”

It would seem a ruling on TEXAS should come today.

[tarpit]

I think what happened is Missouri + 16 filed in support of Texas. This simply means they filed a brief as a friend to the court, giving their guidance on why the court should hear this case. Then, a subset of that group also wanted to be a party to the complaint itself. I think 10 states said, OK we will support, but we do not want to be a party. That is why they filed a second motion Missouri+6 to intervene.

[Semper Vigilantis]

HOW did NC change their laws?
Through their legislature = Legally
By Governor or AG decree = Illegally.

[jdsteel]

So your legal answer is that SCOTUS won’t follow the law.

Oooooook.

[tarpit]

Yes most are saying a ruling could come this morning or this evening based on that. However, they might defer the ruling until after the 14th. My guess is that if they are going to deny, they will do it today, but then again, this is SCOTUS :)

[NEMDF]

Thanks, but I am asking about the first entry on the chart, is that the Gov of MO, being opposed?

[Frapster]

I believe that the actors involved in appointing ACB to SCOTUS showed incredible resolve and rose to the occasion. The five conservative justices will do the same. Failure to act kicks this can into the incinerator of conflict no matter what. They will want to be on the right side of history.

[AFret.]

If you are the State of Texas and you are alleging that cheating in other states has diluted the votes of your citizens thereby depriving them of their right to equal protection of the law under the Constitution in what venue other than SCOTUS could you be heard?

---

Salient point of this entire discussion...well crafted.

If not SCOTUS...who?

In other words if SCOTUS denies the Texas suit, legal precedence will be set permitting sham ‘elections’ to be conducted... with the Court’s blessing.

[tarpit]

HA! Your right. I fat fingered that one. Should have been MT, my bad.

[DEPcom]

"North Carolina, who extended the counting period for mail in votes to Nov 12"

You can count pass election day if the ballots are post marked

I believe the ballots had to be postmark by Election day. There were no drop boxes bypassing the post office.

You had to request an absentee ballot, in GA and PA. NC can not mail them out without your request. Five Steps to Vote by Mail in North Carolina in the 2020 General Election

There were no drop off boxes in NC like GA.

" North Carolina doesn’t offer dropboxes where a voter could drop in a ballot without any interaction with another person. Such boxes would be convenient, but could also keep officials from knowing whether someone handled a ballot who shouldn’t have."

[Jimmy The Snake]

The result of that Theater is that Election rules do not matter anymore.

[hopespringseternal]

If this case is denied or ignored the supreme court will cease to exist as an independent branch of the government anyway, certainly before the next election if not earlier.

It will be transformed into a rubber stamp for leftists via court packing. If the court doesn’t recognize this they are delusional.

[tarpit]

Here is a new one just posted.

Movant State of Texas respectfully requests this Court’s leave to file a single combined reply of 5,400 words in support of itsMotion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint against four defendant States, each of which filed a separate response to Texas’s motion.
source

[Dr. Franklin]

“ Many legal professors (including one from Texas) and other legal pundits believe this case will be denied a hearing, possibly as early as this morning, primarily for lack of standing.”

I find that statement nonsensical.

Considering that the president's lawyer at SCOTUS is a law professor and former law school dean, the report is rather overstated:
Dean John C. Eastman

[No.6]

>The easiest way out is to move aside of the gun, and deny standing.

Anyone who thinks that’s an ‘easy’ way is lying (to us, possibly to themselves too).

To reject the case is to rule for the steal and is the same as taking the case and ruling against us. A semantic difference is in reality zero — and everyone knows it. It may even be worse as it gives free rein for anyone to cheat any way they please, by making it clear that no law remains but force.

This isn’t theoretical as the MSM crowing over every procedural punt in other courts is (correctly) broadcast as a victory for the Dems.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

I certainly was surprised yesterday to find that Pennsylvania does not impose a ‘mandatory signature verification’ on mail-in ballots.

Anybody else surprised to learn that?

From the beginning of this 2020 election debacle I have asserted the ‘cheaters’ went to those States, Counties, and Cities who had the weakest election laws, regulations, and practices in order to carry out there nefarious deeds.

---

Below is from the Pennsylvania response to Texas—

“””””First, Texas asserts that the Secretary “abrogated”
the mandatory signature verification requirement for
absentee or mail-in ballots. Bill of Complaint at 14-15.
This is untrue. See In re Nov. 3, 2020 Election, 240 A.3d
591, 610 (Pa. 2020) (Election Code does not authorize
county election boards to reject mail-in ballots based on
an analysis of a voter’s signature. “[A]t no time did the
Code provide for challenges to ballot signatures.”). Far
from usurping any legislative authority, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused “to rewrite a statute in
order to supply terms which [we]re not present
therein.” Id. at 14. A federal judge reached the same
result. See In Donald Trump for President, Inc. v.
Boockvar, 2020 WL 5997680, at *58 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 10,
2020) (“[T]he Election Code does not impose a signature-comparison requirement for mail-in and absentee
ballots.”).””””