Posted on 12/15/2020 7:03:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
They don’t call the GOP the Surrender Party for nothing. Dems fight for every inch every single day of the year. The GOP useful idiots can’t wait to waive the white flag and get back to doctrine discussions while sitting in their comfy armchairs. Meanwhile, Dems thank them for their support while burning 240 years of our American Heritage to the ground.
“””Here’s a problem with this case that nobody has even mentioned: Do you know for sure that TEXAS conducted the election in full compliance with the protocols established by the state legislature?”””
Fine. Let Pennsylvania countersue Texas. And before they go to Court to argue the suit and countersuit, the Judge orders each party the Rights of Discovery to depose witnesses and inspect relevant documents.
The process you just described there would take a minimum of two years to complete even under an expedited Supreme Court trial calendar.
Who is President from January 2021 to January 2023?
Article 7 shows that the Constitution, which guarantees a “Republican form of government, is a compact between the states. Where the matter at issue is “who is going to be the President who will exercise Article 2 powers,” and when the actions of one state at least might possibly violate “republican” principles and thereby affect who becomes POTUS, then arguably there IS standing. A Presidential election is NOT a purely internal matter for each state - each is linked and dependent upon the others.
All this talk about “law” is really funny. You mean the law that says they can kill babies or force you to have healthcare? Since when is that about the law? It’s obviously not about the law. The Constitution protects our rights if the Supreme Court would follow it. The whole freaking world knows the Demonrats stole this election. Hell, the media won’t even let it be reported if they can
censor it. The Supreme Court tossed the Texas case aside like a McDonald’s wrapper even though our Republic may be lost. They are evil traitors of the worst kind.
Nonsense! First, if PA had a case against TX, that would be a separate case, not something that would somehow negate the TX claim. Second, the TX claim is that PA’s violation (and those of the other 3 defendant states) of it’s own law had a sufficient enough effect to change the results of the single national election that we have under the Constitution. It is beyond absurd to claim that a single ballot violation of TX law had such an effect. You’re really reaching here.
Who knows, but the legislatures are not the only aggrieved parties, so who cares?
1. Look up the term "Entire Controversy Doctrine." It's a principle of common law that requires the parties in a legal dispute to assert ANY claims related to the underlying matter between them in the same case. This is why almost every civil lawsuit I've been involved in (mostly in a professional capacity) included counterclaims that had little or no basis in fact but had to be filed in order for the defendant to protect their rights under the Entire Controversy Doctrine. If you are a defendant in a lawsuit and you don't file a counterclaim in your initial response, it's rare for a court to let you amend you filings and file a claim later.
2. Then look up the "Unclean Hands Doctrine." Again, it's based in English Common Law and applies to situations where the plaintiff in the lawsuit is trying to sue defendants over something that the plaintiff is guilty of practicing itself. If your business partner defrauds you in a business matter, for example, you can't sue him for damages if he can prove that you had also defrauded him in the same business relationship. A plaintiff who has "unclean hands" is barred from pursuing claims for the same matter in a court of law.
These two items explain why Pennsylvania (and the other three states) would have immediately asserted counterclaims against Texas if the case had been allowed to proceed.
I know for sure that Texas did not. For one, the governor issued an order allowing early voting to begin six days earlier than provided by the legislature. Well over 400,000 votes were cast before the statutory beginning of early voting in Harris County alone.
Harris County also operated several "drive through" early-voting sites that also violated the law provided by the legislature. Over 127,000 votes were cast that way, give or take a thousand or two because there was a discrepancy. I know that one through personal experience, because I spent part of Election Day watching a second download of those votes because they did the first one with no poll watchers or clerks present.
There is also a potential Equal Protection argument, because Harris County allowed drive-through early voting while no one else did.
So yes, if PA or the other defendants could defend the case on the basis that Texas also did not follow the manner directed by its legislature, PA would have no problem proving that defense.
Now, each of these issues was, in fact, litigated all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, and the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court ruled against the Republican Party and Republican candidate plaintiffs on the merits each time. But of course, the same could be said of the issues in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and the other states.
I will point out that Pennsylvania and the other states would not be able to assert a "clean hands" defense regardless, because that requires the party asserting the defense to prove that it "has been seriously harmed and the wrong complained of cannot be corrected without the application of the doctrine." Pennsylvania cannot prove such harm for the same reason Texas could not, which is why the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for lack of Article III standing.
By the standards of Texas’s own argument in its lawsuit, Texas had about half a million illegal ballots cast in Harris County alone. They were illegal because they were cast in violation of the manner directed by the legislature, and because some of them, by Texas’s argument, also violated Equal Protection. So if Pennsylvania’s election must be voided, then so must Texas’s on a counterclaim by Pennsylvania (if either state had standing, which they do not).
Some better info: In Harris County, about 628,000 in-person votes were cast before the time for early voting as authorized by the Texas legislature. I don’t have the numbers for the full period state-wide, but 2.63 million voted state wide between 10/13 and 10/15, and I’m pretty sure at least another million voted by 10/18. The first date for early voting as authorized by the legislature was 10/19. Trump’s margin state-wide was about 631,000, barely more than the number of illegal early votes cast in Harris County alone (and that does NOT count the also-illegal drive-through votes, at least 127,000, cast in Harris County).
I can tell you that based on what I’ve directly observed of early-vote counting, I am pretty sure we cannot segregate the illegal pre-10/19 votes from the legal early votes. It is absolutely possible that invalidating those pre-10/19 votes would have swung Texas to Biden.
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.