Wednesday, December 9, 2020

UPDATED: SCOTUS Requires PA, WI, GA, MI Reply To Texas Suit

That's really all there is to report for now. The deadline set is 3PM on Thursday. Jordan Sekulow calls this the "be all, end all, case." The case will come before the SCOTUS to be argued on the merits of clear constitutional issues, not procedural motions or petitions for preliminary relief--as has been the case up till now. There are reports that multiple states have joined with Texas' suit.

UPDATE 1: According to Fox, so far Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana have expressed support. Others may, but haven't been confirmed that I've seen.

UPDATE 2: Zerohedge has a blog on the importance of the Texas suit and repeats some of the things I was saying yesterday--it's succinct and very much to the major points:

As one election law expert put it, the US constitution is effectively a contract between the 50 states, including how their president is elected, and Texas is claiming other parties broke parts of that contract. Texas is apparently now supported by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Talk about a divided country. Perhaps not a surprise, the Supreme Court took the Texas case in expedited fashion, and has called for a response by 3PM Thursday.

Yes, it *is* a huge can of worms it is opening if it acts. Yet it is also a can of worms if it doesn’t act when Texas and other states claim:

“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”

In short, this *might* be the most significant Supreme Court case since 2000, which notoriously decided the presidential election in Florida.

Of course, it does *not* mean the Court will rule for Texas – but them taking the case, rapidly, and calling for a response suggests they are taking it seriously. That is something the Twitterati were saying was inconceivable 24 hours ago. It could also explain why the Court denied emergency injunctive relief in Pennsylvania without dismissing the case: because the claim can be rolled into this larger one. We will soon get to hear what the Court has to say on the matter.


  1. There is also another case re-filed after fixing paperwork. Not sure how significant it is,but sounds massive:
    "Some of the highlights of the 1,585 page suit include 2,560 felons who voted, 66,247 underage voters, and 2,423 votes from people who were not registered."

    1. How do they know there were 66,247 underage voters? What is the evidence for this claim?

    2. I should think the documentary evidence would be included in the filing documents. No?

  2. I've been reading the Texas complaint and brief this morning and may take the opportunity to randomly comment as the day unfolds.

    Here's one.

    Plaintiff State of Texas states, quoting the Supreme Court in the Wesberry v. Sanders case in 1964:

    “No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”

    When I realized, a few years ago, that the conspirators had determined to illegitimately use federal police, investigatory, counter-intelligence, and prosecutorial powers to prevent Trump from being elected or serving as President, I was outraged.

    When I realized that the very same conspirators were using false allegations to illegitimately remove the President from office by impeachment, I was even more outraged.

    But when the very same conspirators illegitimately undermine every American citizen's constitutional voting rights to prevent the President's reelection, I am past outrage.

    1. Also past representative government.

    2. ...and the Constitution becomes meaningless.

    3. The important question or effect, however, is whether your outrage or beyond will actually result in mass refusal to consent to be governed.

    4. The real purpose of the Texas lawsuit is to prevent the next Civil War,

      Rob S

    5. Ah, but Cassander, are you far enough past outrage to support Trump invoking his powers as commander in chief under a national cyberwar emergency and Insurrection Act to arrest those who can be shown in a military tribunal to have colluded with foreign powers to bring down the elected government of the United States? I will.

  3. "really don't mind if you sit this one out
    my word's but whisper your deafness a shout
    I may make you feel, but I can't make you think"

    Somehow, I can't imagine these high falutin' lawyers on the SUPREME Court of this land will "sit this one out". Potentially, this case will rank right up there with a Marbury v Madison and who wants to be left out of that moment in history? Election fraud has been with us since the beginning and it's high time to hammer out how much we Americans will tolerate...and no better champion of this matter than our Very Stable Genius. If not now, when? If not Donald Trump, who?

    This is the moment we've been waiting for...all our ducks are in a row (whatever that hell that has always meant) - let's go all in and let the chips fall where they may. We might as well find out now where we stand as a country. Whew, running outa cliches...may God Bless us all and Merry Christmas everybody!

  4. I think Texas has a solid argument in the variance issues between county to county. We've seen a lot said about that in other suits that have all been dismissed.

    Their remedy however I do not trust in the least little bit. Which is putting the electors back into the hands of the state legislatures.

    Politicians are going to politic and we've already seen all of them completely bail on taking responsibility on their own. I'm uncertain that a court order for them to sit down and flip a coin will do anything but give you the same results over again a second time.

    Government when faced with a choice seems to ebb on the side of making the wrong one about 99% of the time.

    I think the uniparty is counting on jobs, mortgages and car payments to keep the conservatives at bay and swallow this crap sandwich. We really are about the best behaved bunch of well armed opposition you could ever ask for.

    It's probably time that changed, but that means a lot of people would have to become very unselfish very fast.

    I wonder if historically another society has faced similar issues and fought their way clear of it. We don't have USSR stagnation issues, the Visigoths are not at the gate. But the social divisions and the intentional destruction of classical western adhesion structures of church, state, loyalty, family, citizenship and so on are most certainly being extinguished.

    I see no good coming of this and I see no reason for any of the forces in play to make any intelligent decisions.

    I'm not a religious person so I consider good vs evil to reside in the men willing to stand up for right vs wrong. The good side seems to have become very slim in the past few decades.

    It's dismal!

    1. You have allowed the psychological warfare to beat you. It is propaganda and mass hypnosis to make us all believe that the Democrat Mafia and their enablers are the majority opinion, that what they say and believe is mainstream, that they have moral authority, that anyone opposing their views are crazy and evil. Don't fall for it. Believe your lying eyes. We ARE the majority. They are a relatively but very vocal few who have outsize influence due to their pervasive megaphone. Trump has blasted that illusion of their inevitable power. Now let's seal the victory. If it takes military force, so be it.

    2. Thank you for your thoughts but I wouldn't say I am beaten. Especially with the understanding of the very mechanisms you mentioned. I see them quiet clearly.

      My views and thoughts tend to stay in the bigger picture game. Not transfixed on the latest news capture.

      My question to the optimistic would be this... How do you see one win in every 20 losses to be a positive direction?

      What I have no faith in is my fellow travelers in this ride down S-creek. Some of us are ready to throw an anchor and say far enough.

      Lastly I'll state that there should NEVER be military force used within the US. That would be a SERIOUS mistake. If there is to come a fight it should be between the people. No one should advocate for someone else doing the heavy lifting... It is lazy and exactly what my original post was complaining about.

    3. Glad to hear you are not giving up.

      Why do you say military force should never be used in the US? Was the Civil War a great mistake? Should Lincoln have just let the Confederacy win?

  5. Anyone laying odds, on if the Court will hear (broadcasted) Oral Arguments?

  6. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over the Texas case--unless the Supreme Court shuts this case down completely, doesn't this open up discovery and an actual examination of the votes in all the contested states? I would think this would be particularly true since Texas looks to have argued that the violations of the constitution resulted in fraud taking place.

    I realize the court may decide that whether fraud took place on a scale sufficient to affect the election is not relevant to whether the states violated the constitution, but it would certainly be relevant when it comes to the remedy.

    1. "doesn't this open up discovery"

      I don't believe so. The complaint alleges pure violations of two clauses of the Constitution and asks for a specific remedy--remand of the matter to the legislatures to select slates of electors. No discovery required for the SCOTUS to decide the two issues nor to decide re the remedy.

  7. The essential significance of the Texas law suit is that it does not require the SCOTUS to directly change the outcome of the election, but rather puts that responsibility back onto the individual states, via their legislators. That gets them off the hook for allegations of partisanship and also avoids the specter of looking like they abandoned the Constitution. This suit has legs legally and politically; but most importantly, it still leaves the door open for peaceful resolution of this seminal crisis. If the Deep State simply cake walks to successful coup via election fraud, the odds of a "peaceful" resolution are about the same as Biden's improbable win (measured in units of 1 in a quadrillions).

    1. That seems like a rather wise request for a remedy. I've previously thought that if the Supreme Court punted it back to the legislatures, it would allow the court to, just as you say, avoid picking the winner and allow a political resolution. It also avoids the court risking making a ruling about electors that the US Congress just ignores when they choose whether to accept the delegation of electors the states submit.

      Texas has laid out the path that allows the Supreme Court to rule in favor or protecting the constitution while also protecting its legitimacy. Here's hoping they embrace the path Texas as laid out.

  8. Could SCOTUS ignore the remedy Texas proposes and order new elections conducted according to the procedures established by the state legislatures?

    1. I believe they can tailor a remedy for the violation, however the idea of remanding to the legislature seems more in line with the Constitution's notions of how to proceed. It's also conceivable that a remedy could be framed in the alternative, i.e., either remand or hold a new election. All that presumes a favorable decision.

    2. The Plaintiff (Texas) asks for various forms of relief
      including (on page 47 of the pdf) enjoining “Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College” and authorizing, “pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.”

      It looks to me like Texas has anticipated special elections as a possible remedy.

      For anyone interested here is a link to the Texas complaint and brief. It is a very compelling document.

  9. Care to speculate on the outcome?

    1. 1-they will rule as narrowly as possible; roberts trying to save face for the court will side with the cons to make it 6-3
      2-it will not be nearly enough to change the result, but they may worm out of it by throwing it to states
      3-if it goes to state legislatures, look for a lot of squish because uniparty, unless the right can mount a more powerful protest campaign than they or the left have ever mounted before in this country - not optimistic given how well we've shown up so far
      4-their "down the middle" worm out may, however, force the hand of a lot of states to clean up their election processes quickly.
      5-at that point, citizens would have to decide if they were willing to let this ride out for another election cycle or that it wont matter and start the revolution

  10. Personally, I have been a student of media and public opinion.

    While these legal actions are interesting and very significant, I think the most interesting thing about the whole thing is the way media is totally oblivious to the whole issue.

    On the day that Texas et al made this historic Supreme Court filing, the media was talking about Biden's cabinet choices. There is something truly delusional about 'news'.

    1. The media has other concerns:

      Biden Can't Bring Bipartisanship Back
      RealClearPolitics - Homepage by Heather Parton, Salon

      Trump's voters may never accept the reality of his defeat. Why does Joe Biden expect reason can reach them?

      A Political Obituary for Donald Trump
      RealClearPolitics - Homepage by George Packer, The Atlantic

      The effects of his reign will linger. But democracy survived.

    2. They're not news anymore. They are propaganda outlets.

      Total of 18 states are supporting Texas' lawsuit now.


      "Amici curiae are 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. Amici have several important interests in this case."

    3. The national media lives in their own fantasy world of make believe. If news doesn't fit into their fantasy world and the narrative they have all conspired to create, or makes them uncomfortable, they ignore it so that their mushroom viewers are none the wiser. It isn't until the real news can no longer be ignored by omission that the alarm bells begin ringing and they roll out some canard they've been working on to blunt the coming trauma to their psyche.

      If Trump and his team pull this election out, these partisans will be looking at negative poll numbers for trust, honesty, and integrity for the next four years.


    4. Right after I posted the above comment about the news media ignoring Texas et al and reporting on Biden Cabinet,

      I went to Breitbart News and read:
      "Youtube will remove videos question Biden education victory ... even as legal challenges continue.

      "Google-owned video platform YouTube has announced plans to remove any content that questions Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 U.S. presidential election despite the fact that legal challenges involving multiple states continue. YouTube also announced it will be promoting “authoritative news sources,” such as NBC and CBS in video recommendations.

      From the point of view of a social historian, this is a very exciting time to live. The social forces are no longer tacit; they are out in the open without pretense.

      Historians in the future will not have to scour through archives to find documents that describe and explain the times. They will be in 'laying about', waiting to be picked up.

    5. Salon, on "Why does Joe Biden expect *reason* can reach them?"
      Well, Robespierre had a Temple of Reason, in 1790's France.
      Since "reason" can't reach DJT voters, why wouldn't Brezhnev-style psychiatric incarceration be the next resort?

  11. Given their actions in the PA case I don't see much hope. Cowards

  12. China and Company prepared the battlefield with Covid and the riots. The legislatures know if they re-elect Trump there will be assassinations.

    1. They should probably assume the same if they DON'T as well.

      I don't envy the positions of those who will be called on to make no-win choices, and I continue to be pessimistic about how many people remain in this country willing to be selfless, even if it "ruins" their careers... I sure hope there are enough left.

  13. Missouri, joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia, have filed a brief in support of Texas.

  14. go figure, Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ since 2018 for tax fraud. I guess you owe taxes on shell corporations issuing interest free loans that never have to get paid back. Hunter "just learned about this today". Owe, and Biden has released a statement about how proud he is of his son.

    Now about that laptop....

  15. This case is important but not for the reasons everyone else is noting.

    Yes, it is seemingly a perfect vehicle to frame this for SCOTUS, but the greatest significance of this case is the potential to reach millions of non-Trump voters and the public at large and educate them about the scope and magnitude of the evil perpetrated by China and Americans colluding with China.

    This is critical, not for any decision that SCOTUS may or may not make but for what comes next. Because, as i have said repeatedly, no matter what SCOTUS decides, the war will continue and will escalate from the current, undeclared, covert war to a very much declared, kinetic one.

    As proof, imagine the very best outcome from SCOTUS-- declaring Trump the winner, sending it back to state legislatures, sending it to Congress, setting a special election-- and the Democrat Mafia has already planned to set loise the Blamtifa and Obama organized mobs along with state secessions to try to force the outcome. Just read their own playbook in the Transition Integrity Project report from June.

    Now imagine a bad outcome from SCOTUS, one the DeMafia would like. Will Trump shirk his oath of office and allow enemies of the Constitution including the CCP to take power? Never. In fact, he already has the military activated and in motion, prepping for the final showdown.

    So, yes, SCOTUS has a part to play. So do the states and Congress perhaps, but ultimately this will be decided kinetically (unless Biden takes the offered pardon and concedes, or Trump unexpectedly shirks his duty to protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic).