Posted on 12/09/2020 5:33:44 AM PST by Zakeet
Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out. The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election. The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.
At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed. The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first. But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.
Well, it was put on the docket just 12 hours after it was filed, and so it will be heard.
And on Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defending states to file their answers by Thursday at 3 PM eastern time.
So this is really happening.
The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election after all. In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”
And he is absolutely correct. When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.
According to the Electors Clause, state legislatures have the authority to establish how presidential electors will be chosen in their particular states, but Paxton alleges that government officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin made up their own rules and did not follow the election laws that had been passed by their own state legislatures…
“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” Paxton wrote in his filing.“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed,” he wrote. “Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.”
Unlike the allegations of election fraud that are floating around out there, these allegations are very easy to prove.
The following is a brief summary of some of the issues in each of the four states that comes from the Heritage Foundation…
For these constitutional violations alone, the election results in all four states should be thrown out. In addition, in his complaint Paxton alleges that voters in various parts of these states were treated very differently…
Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”
Once again, this should be a slam dunk to prove based on the evidence that has already been publicly presented.
And without a doubt, differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On top of that, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court clearly prohibited “the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”. Since differential standards in the treatment of ballots occurred in all four states, that should mean that the election results in all four states should be thrown out.
Lastly, Paxton alleges that there were “voting irregularities” in each of the four states, and those allegations are going to be more difficult to prove.
But Paxton doesn’t need to prove them, because the violations of the Electors Clause and the violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should both be slam dunks.
Assuming that is the case, what is the appropriate remedy? Paxton is asking that the state legislatures of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be forced “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”
In each of those states, those legislatures could opt to hold new elections or alternatively they could decide to choose new slates of electors themselves. And since all four of those state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that would seem to favor President Trump.
Needless to say, if the current election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are overturned, the left will have a massive temper tantrum. Cities all over the nation would burn and we would see endless civil unrest for the foreseeable future.
So that may make some members of the Court hesitant to overturn the current election results no matter what the Constitution actually says.
But if there are at least five justices that are willing to follow the Constitution no matter what the consequences are, we may soon see the most shocking decision in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thank you for posting the entire thing. I went to the site to grab it for my friends. All the ads are so distracting.
They can. Want to bet on that happening? No chance. They will kick it back to the legislatures..... who have zero backbone
I hope so too, but SCOTUS, or at least John Roberts, ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply, at least in California, during Covid-19. They/he ruled that California can restrict the number of people who can go to church at one time.
My guess is they will duck it, just like they did the ineligibility of Obama.
Twitter rumors are borderline malicious at this point.
**********
Not much control of what is put on twitter thus people
need to take their statements with caution until verified.
Maybe and maybe not. With what I see breaking out on the National Security news they better. There are very serious issues going on here which will go way beyond the courts. The only thing that will matter is the power of the iron fist and don’t think it won’t happen because it very well can from what I’ve been seeing from places you can’t.
“...zero backbone ....”
Now if the shoe was on the other foot & these were Rat controlled legislators they’d seize that opportunity in a heartbeat. Rats have party discipline, its all about the revolution and\power. Also they don’t care what you think of them if they. Hate them all you want call them names if they have power they don’t care. Besides they will later make you regret you said anything. Now Republicans who have been in office a long time want to be liked, they’ll quiver in the corner if you call them names. They are satisfied with just enough power to line their pockets.
I think our best chance to prevent a Biden presidency is trump declared martial law based on report from DNI, Radcliffe. Just my humble opinion.
Bingo and that is not off the table. Heating up big time.
Exactamente.
Seven more state have joined with Texas already. I would expect more today.
Yes, they will say that the States, unconstitutionally, changed the rules in the election. The only way to change rules for elections is through the legislature. That did not happen. The change, delay the times, not verifying signatures, accepting questionable ballots, etc., was done by those who had no authority to do so.
Yes I agree. The Texas case is basically The same premise except it appears to be more succinctly written and with 9 other states enjoined it gives the court a better excuse to hear it. States only have one place to go for relief so the SCOTUS would have a hard time turning them away.
Also in my opinion it would be easier for the court to find 4-5 states guilty of the same conduct and grant a remedy than just Penn. It would carry more weight.
So there is no other body to throw it back to. It's theirs and theirs alone.
You could be right but the constitutional process has to play out first and it ends at the Supremes. I believe Trump said during his recent speech words to the effect that if the Supreme Court does not do its job He will and he will not be so kind and gentle about it.
Is it now? What's pending about it? The plaintiff was looking for an emergency writ of injunction (or alternatively a stay of lower proceedings). That was denied yesterday. They asked for the court to grant certiorari on the questions presented. And then what? To get the emergency writ that was just denied? The matter is dead for all practical purposes.
Is it now? What's pending about it? The plaintiff was looking for an emergency writ of injunction (or alternatively a stay of lower proceedings). That was denied yesterday. They asked for the court to grant certiorari on the questions presented. And then what? To get the emergency writ that was just denied? The matter is dead for all practical purposes.
Nah, if the Court is good at anything, it’s good at deflecting. IF they can find a right to two dudes getting married, they can find a reason to throw the Texas case out, e.g., standing. I hope I’m wrong.
Missouri has joined.
If they refuse, or they appoint electors that don't result in either Biden or Trump getting 270 electoral votes on 12/14, then the whole mess in thrown into the House where they will appoint the electors and pick the new president. Vice president is selected by the Senate.
The House favors Trump in numbers. There are currently 27 Republican state delegations in the House and 22 democRAT state delegations.
I worry about the RINOs. They don't like Trump anymore than the democRATS do. But if they publicly threw their weight behind Biden by selecting Biden electors, I don't see their political careers lasting long in their next reelection effort.
There is a good chance the court will hear the Texas case and rule in its favor. But the outcome for Trump is still up in the air.
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.