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.
I am not an attorney. But I did attend one year of law school before being drafted in the Vietnam war back in the 60s. And I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😂
Seriously, I heard and read several places on the internet that the seven or eight states had "joined" in with Texas in the lawsuit, but legally how they did that I don't know. Again, I would have to defer to your attorney friend.
And I was wrong about it being on the docket meant it would be heard. The court will await the responses from the four states by tomorrow's deadline before they decide to actually hear the case or not. I apologize for misleading you. It can be confusing to the rest of us too.
But I think the court will agree to hear the case because it is a true constitutional issue case, not a fraud case like the president's lawyers are pursuing. It is an important case that affects the integrity of our elections and possibly, as a result, the future of the Republic.
Texas alleges that the fours states violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, the due process clause and the Electoral Clause. Their main argument is that all four states violated the Electoral Clause of the constitution by not conducting their elections in accordance with the procedures set down by their own state legislatures and prescribed by their state constitutions. Election officials allegedly violated that clause by altering election procedures in violation of state law.
Whether the court will agree to take the case is still up in the air. If they did hear the case and rule in Texas' favor, they probably wouldn't nullify the elections. They would probably instruct the state legislatures to pick another slate of electors than the ones the states have already certified.
If the state refused or the electors they picked in conjunction with the other 46 states, did not add to 270 electoral votes for either candidate, then the whole mess is thrown into the House to decide.
Currently Republicans have an advantage there with 27 Republican delegations and the democRATS with 22 state delegations. But then there are RINOs who may not vote for Trump but rather Biden.
So nothing is settled yet and we are a ways from this thing being over.
Thanks for responding.
Some glimmer of optimism here. . . Texas STRONG!!!!!
Oh, no apology necessary. And — to be clear — the attorney I know isn’t really a friend. In fact, i was hoping he was wrong so I could rub it in... 😂
Well, at this point I certainly hope the court decides to hear the case. I think it’s pretty clear the states unlawfully changed the rules, and I agree with you that — if they rule in favor of Texas — they’ll kick the resolution back to the states.
In my opinion, it’s a win-win for them to take the case — they can essentially strengthen election law, or the constitutional rules for elections, while at the same time punting back to the states for resolution (i.e. they don’t have to affect the election outcome).
The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the president and vice president. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned. The amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures on June 15, 1804. The new rules took effect for the 1804 presidential election and have governed all subsequent presidential elections.
Under the original rules of the Constitution, each member of the Electoral College cast two electoral votes, with no distinction made between electoral votes for president and electoral votes for vice president. The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes—provided that number equaled a majority of the electors—was elected president, while the presidential candidate receiving the second-most votes was elected vice president. In cases where no individual won a vote from a majority of the electors, as well as in cases where multiple individuals won votes from a majority of electors but tied each other for the most votes, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to select the president. In cases where multiple candidates tied for the second-most votes, the Senate would hold a contingent election to select the vice president. The first four presidential elections were conducted under these rules.
The experiences of the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections – showing that the original system caused the election of a President and Vice-President who were political opponents of each other, constantly acting at cross-purposes – spurred legislators to amend the presidential election process, requiring each member of the Electoral College to cast one electoral vote for president and one electoral vote for vice president. Under the new rules, a contingent election is still held by the House of Representatives if no candidate wins a presidential electoral vote from a majority of the electors, but there is no longer any possibility of multiple candidates winning presidential electoral votes from a majority of electors. The Twelfth Amendment also lowered the number of candidates eligible to be selected by the House in a presidential contingent election from five to three, established that the Senate would hold a contingent election for vice president if no candidate won a majority of the vice presidential electoral vote, and provided that no individual constitutionally ineligible to the office of president would be eligible to serve as vice president.
Let's keep our fingers crossed that whatever the outcome, it will improve Trump's chances of regaining his win from the treasonous thieves.
from your moth to God’s ears....in ancient Greek theatre this was know as the “deus ex machina” ending to the show!!
TN has joined.
“Tennessee had joined an amicus brief in the case, meaning the state is offering its support to Texas but is not a party on the lawsuit. Led by Missouri, Tennessee is one of 17 conservative states that signed the brief.”
Knoxville News Sentinel
They just joined approx. one hour ago. 17 States now.
Oklahoma I should say.
Perhaps you would be so helpful as to post those specifically.
I can’t imagine why legislatures would want to do that, or that they even can, if split electors is not in their current law. They will have to follow their existing constitutions and laws.
Most states are winner-take-all for electors. It gives the state maximum power in the selection of the President.
The only way California will ever go split, for instance, is if Pubbies get the majority.
Excellent take, and thank you.
I do think Executive action like you describe is the “Plan B” to a civil and legal remedy.
See Rule 17. In matters of original jurisdiction the matter is placed “on the docket” upon receipt of a motion for leave (permission) to file. The Court thereafter may grant or deny the motion, set it for oral argument, direct that additional docu- ments be fled, or require that other proceedings be conducted.
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.