Posted on 12/11/2020 7:43:01 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Texas has filed its reply with #SCOTUS. Now we wait to see what the Justices will do with this multi-state election challenge.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/20201211095822921_TX-v-State-LeaveReply-2020-12-11.pdf
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
It goes to congress if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes which could happen if you had more than 2 candidates who won states.
This is a 2 step process. SCOTUS has to invalidate the states electors which puts the responsibility of selecting electors to the electoral college.
Assuming Texas wins, then we have 5 separate fights whereby lowly state legislatures will be under incredible pressure to vote against the fraudulent outcomes in their states and appoint Trump electors.
You realize it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict?
The court may imply that better leaders should be elected within those States as well as remedies fixed before the election by the legislatures. If prevented, appeal right away (Which some incidences they have already and final decisions still pending).
This could go either way, of course some people are 100% locked in this this case will be heard/not heard. The fact that some cases are still “hanging out there” might be a good sign; will know soon though.
From the Brief:
“Pennsylvania argues that there actually “was no state law violation” when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “temporarily modified” by three days the statutory deadline for receiving mail-in and absentee ballots. Why not? Because, according to Pennsylvania, “the state Constitution required it.” In other words, Pennsylvania appears to be arguing that state law is not really changed if the changing of the law is done by a state’s Supreme Court and it asserts a basis in the state Constitution for doing so. Aside from the obviously tortured reasoning of this argument, there are three additional problems with Pennsylvania’s argument.”
“First, the Electors Clause does not contain a proviso permitting judicial modification of the state legislature’s manner for appointing Presidential Electors.”
“Second, the fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court purported to modify this clear statutory deadline by relying on the Pennsylvania Constitution is of no moment here. The court did not rely on anything in the Pennsylvania Constitution specific to the deadline for receiving absentee ballots. Instead, the court relied on the generally-worded edict that “Elections shall be free and equal.””
“Third, the only case support offered by Pennsylvania for its strained argument is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm, (2015). However, that case is inapposite, as it concerned the Elections Clause of Article I, not the Electors Clause of Article II.”
That's in the brief?? LOL... that's awesome!
ping
C’mon man, give it some time.
Texas: Have your legislature deal with it from this point.
The Texas response is a 49 page document, everyone should read it, it lays out a very clear and concise argument that will win.
For all you whiners... wow, give it a rest. You lay out your concerns based upon zero facts whatsoever other than your programmed or imbedded negativity.
It takes a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove, not a simple majority.
She has a rare sense of “Right” and “Wrong” that most of the rest do not exude - with the possible exception of Thomas.
The reset come from hard core establishment politics, IMHO.
Alito is east coast, princeton and does not always vote with the right but Trump had his misfires with Gorsuch and Cavanaugh.
Okay, big time face palming here. I forgot that it takes more than a simple majority. I was lumping it in with the aftermath of the nuclear option.
“ If we lose Georgia - and therefore the Senate - it won’t matter if Trump gets a second term. The House Dems will impeach him again (probably using his election challenges as their new ridiculous excuse). A compliant Senate will vote to convict and remove him, and the Dems will pull the same crap to also remove Pence, maybe even simultaneously. Then it’s Nancy Pelosi in the Oval Office.”
This is utter nonsense. You need 2/3 in the Senate to convict and remove. That means the 50 Democrats would need 17 Republicans to remove Trump. So if there are 17 Republicans who would go along with removal, per your argument here, how come having a Republican majority in the Senate is important? If 17 would vote to remove a Republican president, then on its face a Republican majority is worthless...because those Republicans would most certainly go along with the Democrats on many other issues as well. There is just no logic whatsoever in what you are saying here.
IN THEORY
there should be at least two votes
Roberts will use everything at his disposal to bring at least one of the remaining GOP appointed justices to this position. However, I don't see a SCOTUS position that the state legislatures ought take action to correct Governors and state supreme courts who unilaterally changed election law as being anti-originalist.
I have no idea as to what the Scotus will do.
Coleman Young typical response to a question outside of the motor city.
Q: What will the city do to address the clear and growing problem of...
A: F.U.
I happen too agree with Mr. K who expressed my thoughts just fine.
Wrong. If we lose the 2 senate seats in Georgia, we still control the Senate if Trump wins through the tie breaker vote of VP Pence.
Then the left begins their terror campaign against the electors. Messages about where their children go to school. Finding beheaded pets in the back yard. Phony questions about their taxes and the first steps in criminal investigations of nothing. It's what the left does.
Or we can crawl in our holes and let the coup plotters win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.