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.
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.