SCOTUS Update

SCOTUS | 12/10/2020

[tarpit]

There were a number of new filings today including the defendants response, motions in support, and motions in opposition. Instead of posting them in individual threads, I thought it better to offer the following in a table format.

This is the updated list of SCOTUS motions in Texas vs PA, GA, MI, and WI. Towards the bottom is the Response of Commonwealth.

Filed By	Description	Document
Texas v PA, et al	Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.	source
President Trump	To Intervene	source
Missouri +16 states	In support of Texas	source
Carter Phillips etc al	In Support of Defendants	source
Constitutional Attorneys	In Support of Plaintiff	source
Arizona	In Support of Plaintiff	source
Missouri et al	To Intervene	source
Ohio	In Support of Nobody	source
PA, GA, MI, WI	Response	source
Members of PA General Assembly	In Support of Plaintiff/Defendants	source
PA State Senators	In Support of Neither Party	source
DC + 22 States and Territories in support of Defendents	In Support of Defendants	source
Christian Family Coalition	In Support of Plaintiff	source
State of Michigan	In Opposition	source
Speaker of the House, PA	In Support of Plaintiff	source
State of Georgia	In Opposition	source
Ron Heuer et al	Complaint-in-intervention	source
State of Wisconsin	To File Bill of Complaint and TRO	source
Rep Mike Johnson + 105 Members of the House	In Support of Plaintiff	source

[newfreep]

Kommie-la trying to get rid Biden sooner rather than later?

[dontreadthis]

out on a limb, but if it’s 5-4 it might as well be 9-0.
If SCOTUS is going to weigh in on what is truly a constitutional crisis, they may well need to make a definitive statement in an attempt to take some wind out of the rioters.
This same reasoning would work for a 0-9 ruling, but I don’t think any arm twisting would work on the conservatives

[Safrguns]

>>> A number of legal experts have opined they expect SCOTUS to deny this case very quickly.

SCOTUS will relegate it’s power to that of Janitorial Staff if it does so.

[katieanna]

Good. Let them fight and destroy each other. Frankly, though, I don’t give a rat’s are about either of them. They are criminals

[katieanna]

And, Texas expressly cites a case in which the Court DID in fact, nullify a states electors. Admittedly, Id have to look back at the brief, but Texas does cite a case so there is precedent. The argument, again, of standing or lack of, is a red herring.

[conservativepoet]

I think the Left will be the left.

[evangmlw]

Jonathan Turley (Constitutional Scholar) says SCOTUS not likely to take it up.

[mn-bush-man]

Between that tidbit and learning that Ellen has Covid, I’m about as full as knowledge as I can stand today!

[NEMDF]

Thank you for your work on this.

[tarpit]

It will be interesting to see if they use a one sentence “case .... is denied” or do they at least give guidance on whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run.

[Gulf War One]

Okay, I’ll play: 7-2. But the states in question were so egregious in rewriting election law without their legislatures - a VERY clear US Constitution no/no - that it may be as high as 9-0, a grand slam.

In essence, they will kick the issue of appointing electors back to the state legislatures.

Let the riots commence...

[NEMDF]

Yes, that was the way I thought it was going.

[Meatspace]

North Carolina.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Thanks tarpit for being so diligent in presenting these cases in such a timely manner.

I just finished the PA response.

This MANDATORY SIGNATURE VERIFICATION statement by PA is the most unsettling to me:

“”””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
4
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.”).”””

If that statement is anywhere near to being true, then why should any state have any rules regarding elections?

Under PA’s line of reasoning, an election in Pennsylvania is no more valid than a bunch of FReepers responding to a ‘poll on the internet’.

[conservativepoet]

Interesting. Got my riot helmet. LOL.

[alancarp]

Well, if Guam is involved, we’ve truly reached the tipping point.

[spacejunkie2001]

bada boom! LOL

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Let me add to my post #54 above.

I am feeling extremely disenfranchised now that supposedly Pennsylvania does NO mandatory signature verification on mail-in and absentee ballots.

If voters across the United States of America had been aware of such a gross negligence by any State, they would have been ‘up in arms’ years ago.

[A Navy Vet]

This Texas suit is on the docket of the USSC! They said they want counter arguments by today at 3:00pm. These are facts. This one is moving forward, and I suspect the USSC will make their decision quickly.

My guess, they will uphold the precedent held in Florida vs Bush in 2000, where Florida tried to change their electoral process without Florida legislation authorization. To my simple non-lawyer mind this is a no-brainer for the USSC.

[rapture-me]

If Trump wins this then he should immediately declare Martial Law and arrest the resulting looters. It shouldn’t take but a few significant arrest to change the hearts & minds of the remaining criminals to retreat.