Posted on 12/09/2020 1:23:20 PM PST by tarpit
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, respectfully seeks leave to intervene in the pending original jurisdiction matter of State of Texas v. Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania,et al., No. 22O155 (filed Dec. 7, 2020). Plaintiff in Intervention seeks leave to file the ac-companying Bill of Complaint in Intervention against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (“Defendant States”), challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
I thought something was done months earlier and Roberts blocked it, and he blocked it twice. Thomas said that SCOTUS should have heard it before votes were cast because it becomes much more difficult after votes are cast, but Roberts would have none of it.
So, SCOTUS refuses to hear before the election, and then punts afterwards saying they should have acted before the election?
-PJ
OK it’s 7:14 here. Any news?
There were plenty of court cases prior to the election. Months of court cases. A summary of where some of those cases stood in October: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-virus-outbreak-voting-1c9d23ce9ff7d3b81d41874bfb49b637
Feet first with a very slow feeding mechanism.
I hope Cruz has a team studying up on the merits of the case and coaching him about what points to make and what can be left out.
Ted Cruz is a great Constitutional Scholar.
“He, or another guest, said that a SCOTUS ruling would give them cover to do the right thing in light of election fraud.”
Can the evidence of election fraud be submitted to the SC with this case?
I’m hoping it all gets exposed. But this case is only about SOS, governors, or supreme courts over-stepping, isn’t it?
It's essentially the opposite of that. It's the state's legislatures who had their Federal Constitutional authority usurped by the states' Executive (Secretary of State, Governor) &/or Judicial branches.
From the Intervention Motion
For example, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State issued guidance purporting to suspend the signature verification requirements, in direct violation of state law. In Michigan, the Secretary of State illegally flooded the state with absentee ballot applications mailed to every registered voter despite the fact that state law strictly limits the ballot application process. In Wisconsin, the largest cities all deployed hundreds of unmanned, unsecured absentee ballot drop boxes that were all invalid means of returning absentee votes under state law. In Georgia, the Secretary of State instituted a series of unlawful policies, including processing ballots weeks before election day and destructively revising signature and identity verification procedures....
To the extent these drastic and fraud-inducing changes in state election law were done without the consent of the state legislature, the federal constitution was violated. Article II provides that only state legislatures can make rules for presidential elections. Election officials—either on their own or in cooperation with courts—cannot change the rules either weeks in advance or in the midst of the election process.
...
It is not necessary for the Plaintiff in Intervention to prove that fraud occurred, however; it is only necessary to demonstrate that the elections in the defendant States materially deviated from the “manner” of choosing electors established by their respective state Legislatures.
Perhaps ironically, President Trump's Intervention Motion here, was submitted by a California lawyer (who's name many might recognize).
John C. Eastman
Counsel of Record
One University Dr.
Orange, CA 92866
I should have said illegal election procedures, not fraud.
GA legislature is pretty aware of the fraud here too, especially after the hearing, I think a SCOTUS ruling will help them do the right thing. That was apparent in their petition: https://secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/5is4-2bzvwo—sn1lc-qkxshy9
They could not get enough signatures according to one of them, because our LT. Gov called and threatened them.
So am I. All the defeatists on this thread annoy me. They are probably also cuckolds who enjoy doing housework while their wives are necking with their boyfriends in the parlor.
It's not "only" about that, or over-stepping.
It's about the defendant states actually violating Article II of the Constitution of the United States and by doing so, harming the plaintiff state (TX) and it's citizens as well as the rights of one of the parties involved in the disputed election (President Trump).
“Article II provides that only state legislatures can make rules for presidential elections.”
That was basically what I said. You can downplay how I stated it by using quotes, but it’s still the same thing.
My question was if the evidence about fraud could be submitted.
That amicus by CTW is pathetic.
All it means is Trump becomes a party to the lawsuit - that’s all - it doesn’t change the lawsuit but it allows people to hyperventilate and key titles in uppercase and other dramatic behavior.
The President's lawyer points out it isn't necessary to prove, therefore, not necessary to submit.
Violations of Article II have already been proven by the defendant states' SOS/Judiciary known/stated actions.
SCOTUS isn't going to hear a case like this based on fraud. However...they have full, original jurisdiction to hear Article II violations that cause a dispute between states.
Question remains, will they have the guts to taken on this nuclear hot potato, federal government altering issue!?!? We shall see, probably by the end of this week.
The SC doesn’t have to act on any lawsuit, including a president joining a lawsuit.
I really did not appreciate who is representing Trump until you pointed that out. Thank you.
Well stated. I agree.
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.