Posted on 12/09/2020 12:29:22 PM PST by tarpit
1STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI“In the context of a Presidential election,”state actions “implicate a uniquely important national interest,” because“the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson v.Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 794–95 (1983). “For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.” Id.Amicicuriaeare the States of Missouri,Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,Montana,Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,and West Virginia.1Amicihaveseveralimportant interests in this case. First, the States have a strong interest in safeguarding the separation of powers among state actors in the regulation of Presidential elections. The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 carefully separatespower among state actors, and itassignsa specific functionto the “Legislature thereof” in each State. U.S.CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4.Our system of federalism relies on separation of powers to preserve liberty at every level of government, and the separation of powers in the ElectorsClause is no exception. The States have a strong interest in preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thussafeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Great!!
Thank you.
They would have gotten the five border states and the midwestern states just from economic incentives alone.
His case is exactly the same as the Texas case, but was dismissed for no standing even though he is a GA voter. Supreme Court will likely rule on the Texas case before Wood’s case gets on the docket and they have stronger standing from what I understand.
If the other states “joined” the Texas suit we’d be here til Easter. This shows the strength of support without the delay of actually filing. If there was no time constraint they’d file with Texas.
Exactly, there would have to be a motion for every state, then a chance for the defendants to respond. It would take forever lol
Not sure, to be honest with you — my knowledge is limited. My guess would be if they wanted to be plaintiffs Texas would have to withdraw, and they’d have to file a new suit together.
The clever bit about their filing, is that the election of the VICE PRESIDENT is an crucially important matter to the states because the states are represented IN THE SENATE.
The VP is the President of the Senate. If four states engage in illegality to taint the election, it directly impacts the interests of all the states that carried out their elections legally.
It is a very clear, simple argument. If the process of the election in those states is in dispute, there is very clear relief available by directing the states to slate their electors through their legislatures.
If they can’t do that, then the matter is ultimately resolved in the House via 12th Amendment.
It is genius, but more importantly, it is very, very straightforward.
Sure would. He can be for corruption and against it at the same time.
Kentucky has a party split between AG and governor, which makes for some interesting friction. AG sues his own governor on COVID tyranny ...
From what I understand it’s because time is short. All these states would have to file to join Texas. This is quicker and allows a powerful signal to be seen in strong support.
Brilliant in a way.
Awesome. Keep praying!
The GA AG has already weighed in:
“With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” a spokesperson for Carr said, according to The Dallas Morning News.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/texas-tries-hail-mary-to-block-election-outcome/
On War Room, they’re saying the Amicus brief is nothing. The states MUST “intervene” (as Trump is doing) as co-plaintiffs with Texas. Contact your AG office ASAP.
“My guess would be if they wanted to be plaintiffs Texas would have to withdraw, and they’d have to file a new suit together.”
They could each file their own cases or join together to file a second suit that echoes the Texas suit. In that case, SCOTUS would combine them with the Texas suit into a single case. But this is a time-sensitive issue, and that might delay the case to the point where any action might come too late.
Interesting. Which lawyers were saying that?
“Which lawyers were saying that?”
The lawyers who work with Bannon and his crew, I assume.
I checked ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN to see if they were mentioning the Texas and other states lawsuits or mentioning if Trump had joined them.
Nothing, nada, zip-zilch-zero except CNN which has this headline:
“Trump asks Supreme Court to invalidate millions of votes in battleground states”
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/trump-supreme-court/index.html
Monumentally yuge story that is ignored by the media. They all should burn in Hell.
Saw a guy in WalMart yesterday with a Stars and Bars flag on his hat. His phone rang with the ringtone of the car from Dukes of Hazard.
This is not a criminal lawsuit, it is constitutional.
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.