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.
To refuse to hear a case from 10 states? Unlikely.
To refuse to hear a case from 10 states? Unlikely. They voted 6-3 to put it on the docket. It only requires 4 justices.
So many naysayers and chickenlittles. Get a spine!
When the shooting starts, get the f*** out of here.
Thanks. From what I understand — which is limited, since I’m not a legal scholar — they’re “friends of the court” and not plaintiffs. That helps strengthen the case, but it would be nice if they were also plaintiffs (if they can even do that).
It only takes 4 justices to put a case on the docket. My understanding is this was 6-3 to put it on the docket. They want to hear the case.
“The Harris v. Pennsylvania was on the docket and it got dismissed yesterday”
Actually that is untrue.....What was “not granted” was
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION PENDING THE
FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.
The case IS still pending.
Please, understanding the facts at this time is important for everyone. We must try and be accurate in what we post.
“...They voted 6-3 to put it on the docket ...”
Has that actually happened ?
Is there any link giving official confirmation?
The SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over suits between States. States would have no legal recourse to settle disputes if SCOTUS would decide not to hear a case. In short, I don’t think SCOTUS can decline to hear it as there is no lower court ruling to fall back on. Finally, an election fraud case that cannot be dodged. Perhaps I am wrong.
Is this the work of Ted Cruz?
Never mind !
Found the link !
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
You don’t understand what put on the docket means. They didn’t vote on anything at all. Everything get put on the docket, even before it’s rejected.
My theory - I'm not a lawyer - is that they turned down Mike Kelly's case on Pennsylvania yesterday because they knew the facts and arguments would be brought out and encompassed by this case. That's my hope anyway.
Please see my #90. Literally everything get puts on the docket. Thousands of cases per year. And asking for a response is common. Doesn’t mean they will actually hear the case. And there has been no vote yet. The first vote will be after the response is in. Twitter rumors are borderline malicious at this point.
Thank you !
It is not complicated . Court accepts Texas proposed solution. Remands choice of electors back to the legislatures. Anyone here really believe 3 out of 4 of those legislatures are going to send a slate of electors who will vote for trump? I like you want it to happen.... but there is a reality here.
The is not necessity. That is already a power CODIFIED in the USC.
btt
I agree..... but we still don’t see those legislatures acting on it. Even when court tells them they can.... they won’t. That is the reality. This will require an armed event to stop a Biden presidency. Either martial law by trump or citizen revolution.
They can also invalidate the election due to the voter fraud evidence.
ping
Unfortunately I think you may be right.
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.