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

[RoseofTexas]

I agree 💯 with you! The SC is humoring the natives by accepting the case but eventually will rule against Texas. THE ONLY WAY To fix this by secession from the Union OR fighting our way through to get our nation back to freedom! There is no other way! CHEATING JO AIN’T MY PRESIDENT!!

[M Kehoe]

“Meanwhile, Kamala is already driving the nails into Biden’s coffin”

LOL.

Methinks you are very intuitive.

5.56mm

[Safrguns]

As I said... SCOTUS = SCROTUM if they punt.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

no more valid than a bunch of FReepers responding to a ‘poll on the internet’.

(ahem) excuse me!

[RoseofTexas]

Boy I tell you the rats know how to stick together like booger glue...where are the other red states? Ugh!

[StAnDeliver]

"Any other opinions of people here who have a legal background?"

OMG I read that and for some reason the first thing I thought of was CongressmanBillybob.

In a moment like this your presence is deeply missed, counselor.

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahahaha, the Hank Johnson defense! ... Thanks, I needed a good laugh. This crap sandwich is getting to stinky.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

“ Contrarily, they surely must realize this circumstance is precisely why they exist: to interpret a thing Constitutional or not”

It is true that if they punt on this question, there is nothing of any significance that they wouldn’t punt on. In that case, they are of little to no value whatsoever. Why would we care that McConnell got the judges through the Senate if they punt on anything of significance that comes before them? Why would we care if the court was stacked by Biden if all they’re going to do is kick back, have some drinks, collect their paychecks and only rule on the simple stuff?

One thing you will note on FR is the high preponderance of beaten dog syndrome. We expect to get here even when someone is handing us a plate of steak. We, and the country, have had our ass kicked by the Democrats and establishment Republicans so many times that we expect it now every time in everything.

The time when we actually win one, and you never know when that’s going to be, half the forum will pass out from shock and the other half will write long treatises about how we really lost and just looks like we won 😉

[StAnDeliver]

BTW this is nice work tarpit and thank you.

[daler]

“I am quite surprised at the number of Freepers continuing to think SCOTUS will punt...”

While I am not optimistic about what the court will do (thanks to the expert opinions of the likes of Dershowitz, Levin and Greg Jarrett), I’m not necessarily believing the court will punt.

However, I do wonder what impact a favorable ruling would have on the swing states.

Can a court order them to change their vote totals?

If so, by what means or manner?

I could see the court issuing a ruling and statement supporting Texas and the President, yet throwing it back to the individual states to craft a solution.

That would be a total letdown IMO, and tantamount to a “punt.”

[SE Mom]

I have read some opinions of conservative legal brains and their thinking is that 1) this election was fraudulent and 2) SCOTUS is unlikely to take THIS case because it isn’t on solid ground, constitutionally. The idea(s) seemed to be their were/are better ways to present the problem to SCOTUS.

I don’t know- I expect it’s 50/50.

[cll]

Not a peep. Our clueless governor is just focused on placing her people into “permanent” or long term government jobs before she’s out on January 2.

[DoodleDawg]

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

Having strict rules or having no rules at all are powers the states have. Each state runs its own election in its own fashion so long as they don't violate the U. S. Constitution.

[newfreep]

Yep...and Kommie-la agrees with us.

[DoodleDawg]

The idea(s) seemed to be their were/are better ways to present the problem to SCOTUS.

I don't see how. Problematic this case may be it's still the first case that was guaranteed to go to the Supreme Court.

[wfu_deacons]

I am kind of where you are— what is the Constitutional standard? If the SC want to ensure the Constitutional is followed but is unwilling to dictate the state’s election result, I can see them splitting the baby. Perhaps as a condition of certification, the SC could simply require the four states attest under penalty of perjury that their election was conducted pursuant to state law without modification by state and local judiciary and executive actors (the Constitutional standard), then the SC has disenfranchised no one. If state officials are unable to attest to the statement, it is the state officials who placed their voters in jeopardy. The voters are not disenfranchised, they just lose their Safe Harbor status.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Echoing other kudos, with special notice taken of your fine table: HTML expertise.

[tarpit]

Thank you for sharing. I wonder if they punt, will they at least answer Ohio’s question as to whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run?

[farmguy]

Your reply makes me wish Free Republic had upvotes.

[tarpit]

It is a good question. I am pretty sure they need 5 votes to hear this case because it relates to exclusive original jurisdiction. The counter argument is that Texas does not have a unique interest and thus there are other venues it could and should be heard in.

The Ohio motion goes into some reasonable and easy to read arguments on why they cannot support the relief that Texas is seeking. They do, however, hope that the court will answer whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run.