Posted on 12/12/2020 6:25:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Attorney General of the State of Texas, Ken Paxton, filed a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court against the four battleground states alleging the election laws in each of those states were violated.
The suit charged that because the procedural amendments to facilitate expanded mail-in and absentee voting in those states were not legislated, as mandated by both the US and the respective state constitutions, that the said expansion was illegal and constituted a violation of the 50 State covenant that is the basis for our Union.
The nation’s High Court rejected the suit late Friday based on the controversial point of “standing.”
With that decision, President Trump’s legal team is filing retooled lawsuits that will be filed in each of the four Defendant States and expanded to Nevada and Arizona.
“We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said in an interview.
“courts are saying they want to stay out of this, they don’t want the American people to hear the facts.”
Attorneys on #Trump’s legal team, @RudyGiuliani and @JennaEllisEsq, shared that the team is considering filing separate lawsuits to district #Courts. https://t.co/ZA5EuWu5se— NTD News (@news_ntd) December 12, 2020
The retooled lawsuits – that incorporate tacit direction by Justice Alito and seconded by Justice Clarence Thomas, will incorporate the charges made in the complaint filed by Texas.
Alito wrote in a separate statement from the High Court ruling, “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction…I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”
Neither he nor Thomas addressed the questions in the case.
“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing,” Giuliani continued to say in the interview. “And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So, they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today.”
Giuliani punctuated his statement by saying, “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
They should hire Ken Paxton. I read that case. It was done right.
I think some type of legal victory with certified evidence is much needed...but if TEAM TRUMP has a contested on Jan. 6 it could be decided by delegates in the house.
Believe there is a path as long as litigation is still active in my view based on Dr. Turley’s explanation.
P
While many, even on the right, will argue that these lawsuits are a frivolous waste of time and that they will continue to be dismissed, at least President Trump is trying. What other choice does he have? Should he just quit now and concede?
This is a hot potato no one wants to hold for any period of time or brave enough to stop and eat it. So they pass it on to the next person or group. The evil that exists behind this is life threatening for all involved and anyone stopping this dead in its tracks and making a decision is putting bullseye on themselves and thier family, they are scared sh##less Im sure
I still can’t believe we didn’t have a strong ground game where “we are there to count the real votes.” This was a Trump landslide and Biden will always be illegit to me.
Bump
The court rejected Texas because of “standing.”
Trump should have his lawyers file for him, personally.
He is the aggrieved party.
If anyone has “standing,” it is him.
Here’s a map showing the states on each side. Some states have irreconcilable differences with other states.
We had observers but they were shut out. It was bullying on a massive scale.
We needed literal proud boys in there, but they would have simply sent in the police to remove them and observers.
They did that in Detroit if I remember.
“What other choice does he have? Should he just quit now and concede?”
The daises, pearl clutchers, hand wringers, and other assorted ne’er-do-wells would jump for joy at simply the thought as well as party like it was 1999. I hereby dub them as Chamberlains’.
MAGA ======> KAG
Trump's lawyers have filed many cases with Trump, personally, as the plaintiff. All have been dismissed, the most recent was today in Wisconsin, where it was dismissed by a federal judge Trump appointed.
But why shouldn’t partisan election officials in four Democrat run cities decide the fate of America?
/s
Thanks.
>>The suit charged that because the procedural amendments to facilitate expanded mail-in and absentee voting in those states were not legislated, as mandated by both the US and the respective state constitutions, that the said expansion was illegal and constituted a violation of the 50 State covenant that is the basis for our Union.
This case is very winnable, if the SC would just hear it. They just ruled in the DNC V Wisconsin case that only state legislatures can enact or alter election laws.
The allegations against Pennsylvania were already taken to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and shot town, appealed to Justice Alito and thrown out. Not sure how they will fare in the other states.
Trump should refile with him as the plaintiff. That way he definitely has standing. Even though the courts will not hear this before December 14, 2020, it’s important that these suits be filed to contest the certifications later and argue that the choice of electors is still in dispute.
They need to focus their efforts on finding cases of criminal vote-rigging. All these technicalities they’re citing - like changes in the process made by administrators instead of legislators - may be illegal but they aren’t outrageous enough in average people’s eyes , to justify overturning the election.
On the other hand, showing a criminal conspiracy to rig the vote would be outrageous enough to give congress second thoughts about approving the electors.
A team of top notch private investigators, plus big publicized rewards for vote-rigging whistleblowers. That’s what’s needed.
BUMP
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.
