Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge 

By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (3)
Thu, 10 Dec 20 3:46 AM | 32 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 09697 of 60008
(This msg. is a reply to 09695 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

December 8, 2020

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

by Michael Snyder
TheMostImportantNews.com


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…

• Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.

• Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”

• Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”

• Wisconsin: Lastly, the Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

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.

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/the-texas-lawsuit-is-on-the-docket-the-supreme-court-will-determine-the-fate-of-the-2020-election




Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge
By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE
Thu, 10 Dec 20 3:00 AM 		Msg. 09695 of 60008

December 9, 2020

The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge UPDATED

There's a reason other states are joining the case: the case puts the matter immediately before the Supreme Court and has impeccable arguments.

by Andrea Widburg
AmericanThinker.com

On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit alleged that because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens, but also the citizens in other states. Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it's no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation.

To date, we've seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed, although, significantly, none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review. Courts in various states, however, have proven resistant to these suits.

As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call "garbage" decisions. Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so. Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump's claims, they would run the risk of "disenfranchising" Biden voters.

That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that "voter" is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.

Do you know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes? You identify the winner and loser in an election, as has happened in America since 1792. Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised; they just voted for the losing candidate.

The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional, legislative process. By doing so, they assured illegal mail-in votes, meaning that all votes under the new "rules" were illegal from the get-go. These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes, tainting the national election.

After all, we are a federation of states. While the individual states control their own election rules, each state is affected by the election outcomes in the other states. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's statement about the lawsuit perfectly sums up the correct legal standard:


Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.
"Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens' vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections," said Attorney General Paxton. "Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error."
Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.
Because this is a suit between two states, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It's also a factually pure case, which does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud.

If you want a good overview about why the case is really huge, Jay Sekulow, one of America's most brilliant constitutional lawyers, and his team at the American Center for Law and Justice explain the procedure and the substance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWyx6kAZ6g&feature=emb_logo

(Here's more about the role the House of Representatives could play. Also, you can see the lawsuit here.)

No wonder it appears that eight other states have joined the case (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina , and South Carolina). The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court justices are willing to show the necessary courage to ensure that the will of the people, and not the will of the corruptocrats, prevails in this election.


UPDATE: As of Wednesday afternoon, the most current list https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/seventeen-states-throw-support-behind-texas-in-election-lawsuit of states that have signed on to the Texas litigation says that, in addition to Missouri (represented by state AG Eric Schmitt), 16 other states have joined the case:
Schmitt’s brief was joined by 16 other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/the_texas_lawsuit_in_the_supreme_court_is_huge.html

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next