Posted on 12/09/2020 1:23:20 PM PST by tarpit
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, respectfully seeks leave to intervene in the pending original jurisdiction matter of State of Texas v. Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania,et al., No. 22O155 (filed Dec. 7, 2020). Plaintiff in Intervention seeks leave to file the ac-companying Bill of Complaint in Intervention against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (“Defendant States”), challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
According to Sekulow’s broadcast today, the standing is state vs. state. Trump being on it doesn’t hurt that, and he definitely is an injured party.
“I am I right in thinking this is not about the fraud, but about states illegally extending election day, with or without mail-in ballots?”
They were carried out illegally.
Fraud or no fraud.
BOOKMARK
Not exactly. Certain agents in these states, in our case in GA it was the SOS, changed election laws without going through their state legislature, which is illegal. So none of the 4 state’s elections were conducted lawfully.
In GA, the SOS changed our signature verification laws in a secret settlement deal with democrats in March 2020.
It is about certain agents going around their legislature making their own election laws. In some states it was allowing ballots after the deadline, in GA, it was changing the law on absentee signature verification and curing.
“... President of the United States, respectfully seeks leave to intervene ...”
Thanks, lawyers. What the heck does “leave” mean here?
I looked it up and I think in this situation is means “permission”.
There are a lot of things us common folks aren’t supposed to know.
I like John Eastman. He was on Newsmax last night and was a frequent guest on Laura Ingraham. I don’t watch FNC anymore.
Basically he is requesting permission to join as a party to the complaint.
It’s worse than that. In many cases the SoS made changes that weren’t authorized by the legislature. PA was an example of that.
Mark Levin discusses PA in the above article. You are correct, the Legislature changed the election rules, but it requires a change to the State Constitution which requires a lot to change it. Something like 2/3 yes vote, then put to the voters in a Referendum, etc.
On top of the Legislature changing things (allowing for mail in voting, back in Oct. 2019 pre-Covid), the state courts started changing the Legislature’s rules this year to allow for no signatures, no postmarks, late ballots, etc. Which again was against the state’s constitution, but also against the Federal Constitution iirc.
So, more or less, what I said, but on a broader level to include rules that were put into place, which were counter to state laws (not limited to state constitutional issues). As well as, those administering the elections going rogue and doing whatever they thought they could get away with.
THANK YOU
The Texas case got on the courts calendar as a case between the states, where the court has original and exclusive jurisdiction. “Taking the case” gives us no read on the potential outcome. Trump may know, he may not. The court has multiple avenues to take from here, a ruling to empower the defendant state legislature to select electors in keeping with the vote totals, or not.
They have every opportunity to side step the issues, inventing some reason to punt, like filing late in the Pa case was particularly disappointing. It wasn’t filed late. No statute of limitations applied, within 30 days is always reasonable.
But like Trump called on the Nov 4th morning, “I told you they’d try to steal it, so now we go to the Supreme Court”. Now it’s going to take courage”.
Bingo. Alito if free to pronounce any avenue he choses. No stare decisis no precedent no guard rails.
Courage, Thomas has it, Kavenaugh has it, I think Alito has it, but Im unsure after the Pa thing, they didnt sequester the later ballots, Alito could have made a strong argument for a Trump win, but no injunctive relief is wrong, just wrong .
Amy Barrett has a big family to protect, they got to Roberts, the importance of Obamacare pales in comparison.
Place your bets patriots, it’s literally a jump ball now in the air, with the existance of the republic in the balance.
Im equally livid over the prospect of a Trump loss, Obama Hillary et. Al. Get away with it. Durham Barr and all indictments disappear or perps get pardoned. Stunning development.
See post #52
Yep!
Lawsuits can be filed directly with the Supreme Court in very, very limited circumstances. Lawsuits between states are one of the only types of lawsuits that can be filed directly with the SC.
That’s why this was all done this way.
The PA case only had the emergency injunction dismissed, the actual case is still on the docket according to Sekulow.
Being state vs. state is what got them directly to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court doesn't think Texas has proven standing to file suit then they'll let them know soon enough.
Just skimmed over bearing down here and there.
It looks very strong.
The front end giving the President standing to intervene (join) is solid. Eastman nails it here.
There is no question our President was injured in the maladministration of elections committed by Defendants.
I can’t see any weakness.
I don’t see how the Supreme Court can do anything but grant the relief requested (begin pg. 18).
Trump just ruined Christmas for countless liberals.
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.