Posted on 12/09/2020 5:33:44 AM PST by Zakeet
Yes, it is even when you term it like a smug azhole.
Do your homework and you would know that.
Yes they can and have. They have “joined” Texas in the case as plaintiffs.
This all happened before Texas even file their lawsuit late Monday night/early Tuesday morning.
My guess is that they will decide in favor of hearing the case because this is too important to the fate of the Republic. We have five constitutionalists on the bench now. Barrett neutered Roberts siding with the liberals.
But we shall have to wait and see.
It takes no justices for a filing to be made. They don’t make filings to themselves.
The Rule of 4 is whether or not they will hear an appeal. There is no “vote” on such a matter.
I don’t think this is an appeal but a filing for the Court to hear a case in Original Jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election if we are a nation of laws.
If we are, then the state legislatures will decide the winner of the election.
-PJ
Actually it takes 4 justices to agree to review the case. I believe they review cases normally on Wednesday. That’s where they decide whether or not to hear a case. I had read that they had already decided to hear the case. Apparently that is not correct. However I doubt the court will refuse to hear a state vs state case as they are the only court of relief for a state.
UNLESS the winner is simply whoever has a majority of electoral votes cast. If the SC throws out these four states, Biden still leads in certified electoral votes 244-232. IF it is the case that the winner needs a simple majority of votes cast, then Trump still needs one state to flip. All 4 states require the governor to call a special legislative session in order for the legislatures to vote on electors. NONE of the four have any interest in doing so! We could see the SC give us what we want - decertify all 4 states - and still see Fraudulent Biden! All that is required is the 4 states do nothing.
There was a reason Trump fired Esper, the DOD chief, a week after the election and then appointed Miller, a former Green Beret and Special Ops guy, to take his place for two months.
Then, within a week on Nov. 18th, Miller moved the Special Operations forces directly under his command on the same level as the regular services.
Trump left the FBI and the CIA out of the loop on this because he knows they are compromised by the Deep State. He will utilize military intelligence instead of the civilian intelligence agencies. 305th Military Intelligence unit based in Ft. Huachuca, AZ.
So now Trump has his guy at the helm of the DOD and access to MI. The MSM and the democRATS all questioned why Trump was doing this right before he left office.
The answer is, he is not leaving office. He's going to invoke martial law and use special ops troops to go into these battleground states and seize control of their fraudulent election operations. He will have the bad players arrested.
Remember his statement that he has repeated several times now? "We caught them. We caught them all." He knows what happened and he's got his own evidence of the treasonous crimes the democRATS have committed.
He'll have forensic auditors separate the legal votes from the illegal votes. Separate the wheat from the chaff. He'll confirm that he won by a landslide.
And he will restore the integrity of the election system and save the Republic.
Will there be riots and more arson and looting from the Left? Absolutely. Will the democRATS scream treason and try to remove him from office again. For sure. Could this devolve into a shooting war and CWII break out. Very real possibility.
But what is the alternative? Give up the Republic as founded to the Marxist democRATS who attempted a real life coup d'état to take over the country? Let China, Iran and the globalist tear our country apart? Trump still has a constitutional duty to remedy these treasonous crimes. He will do what is right by the Constitution.
Just my studied opinion, as well.
No, it could be argued that if a state refused to name electors, the number of electors necessary for election would decline by half of that state’s number of electors.OTOH the provision of the US Constitution does say,
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . .Not “may,” shall.But it would of course be possible to name Electors pledged to a beloved figure in the state who will not win. That definitely would produce the result you suggest.
One game that could be played by the state legislatures would be to name electors pledged to Pence for POTUS rather than VP, and vice versa.
That could empower the House Republicans to consider voting that inverted ticket into office, since the House can choose among the top 3 Electoral vote-getters.
I believe the SC will hear the case after they review the responses of the four defendant states. Deadline for their responses is tomorrow, 12/10.
First, because this is state-to-state issue of original jurisdiction and it is important to the integrity of the elections which are detailed in the Constitution. This is a real constitutional issue, not a fraud case.
And second, remember the court now has a real 6-3 conservative, constitutional majority. Barrett replaces liberal Ginsberg and neutered Roberts siding with the liberals.
But one never knows what they will do. We wait and see.
Correct, the Rule of 4. But that's an appeal. I don't know if that applies to a case of Original Jurisdiction.
Where does the Constitution say anything about Presidential elections?
Blue cities. Red cities would respond appropriately
Well, I’m not sure what to believe. I’m being told by an attorney that these states are definitely not plaintiffs, and haven’t even filed as friends of the court. According to him, they’ve just expressed support for the case.
I’m also being told that adding an original case to the docket isn’t anything special, that ALL original cases get added to the docket.
I don’t know...
Good news, thank you.
Yo, Kevin Stitt...
I’d think that state legislatures in question could allot the electors according to congressional district. NE and ME already do this.
If that is done, don’t know if it helps Trump get to 270 or not.
If the legislatures in question do nothing, then they basically abdicate election law to the sitting SOS and governor.
Next election, the SOS and governor can propose that only Dem votes count and who will stop them? - the precedent will have been set.
There are lots of options for the legislature to claw back their authority, but they all take backbone.
Bookmark, thank you for posting.
Let me know when Merriam Webster uses the same definition as the specific rules promulgated by the SCotUS.
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.