First--I'll be away from the blog for about three hours, starting in one hour. Comments will be enabled upon return.
The Texas lawsuit looks like it could be a real game changer--legally, of course, but perhaps most importantly, politically. We've always spoken of the lawlessness of the Dems in the conduct of elections, but when things reach this point the issue is political, in the big picture sense of the word: It's really about our constitutional order, and that's why Texas is alleging violations of the US Constitution--the compact and the glue that holds this country together.
First and foremost, this lawsuit brings all four of the named states--as well as Texas--before the SCOTUS. Immediately. My reading of this is that the elections in these states cannot be certified or, alternatively, any certification should be held to be without effect (a bit more below).
Breitbart has a good account of the lawsuit, which is very straightforward in its essentials. The lawsuit alleges that four states (PA, MI, GA, WI) and certain counties within those states violated the US Constitution in two respects in their conduct of the presidential election.
First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
Here's the text of Article II (in relevant part):
Article II, Section 1: Elections
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
This is exactly the provision that the feckless John Roberts--in the 4-4 pre-Justice Amy SCOTUS--tried to sidestep, by saying that what the PA Supreme Court did with regard to federal elections held in PA was no concern of the SCOTUS. Texas is telling Roberts and every other justice on the SCOTUS that what the corrupt political machines within portions of these four states have done to the Constitution IS TEXAS' CONCERN. And that means that it better become the SCOTUS' concern, too, because Texas doesn't stand alone in this.
If states are allowed to alter the rules set by the US Constitution, then the US Constitution has become a dead letter. That's the subtext to this allegation, and the SCOTUS cannot be unaware of that.
Next (edited from Breitbart):
Second, when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots as opposed to the way this was done in other counties, they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This was the holding in Bush v. Gore: Voters of every state have the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from one county to another. To do otherwise violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Again, the 14th Amendment, in relevant part:
... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Once again, if individual states are allowed to flout this provision, then our social compact--the US Constitution--is effectively a dead letter. This is certainly the lesson of the struggle for equal civil rights for all persons. That struggle led us through a bloody Civil War and much else since then. The justices all understand that.
Texas, as an equal member of these United States, has a right to expect that the SCOTUS will enforce the Constitution as against all other states. To do otherwise violates the nature and purpose of the Constitution. As a remedy, Texas is asking that the Supreme Court remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures of those respective states.
Texas has drawn a line, whether most of the country understands that or not--and if the justices attempt to dodge or finesse these issues they will do so at great risk to the Union. The justices have to be able to sniff the scent of secession in the air. It's a serious thing when one state alleges Constitutional grievances as basic as free and fair elections and equal protection of the laws against other states. But we all know that there are other grievances--grievances against the recklessly lawless political party that is behind this flouting of the Constitution, with more harm openly threatened or promised. Here is Don Surber's list of those grievances, and it's only a partial list (the first item is Surber quoting sundance):
"No amount of media spin is going to change the reality of that political landscape."
They stole our jobs by shipping them overseas.
They stole our lives by using the pandemic to restrict our movement.
They stole our right to vote.
All of this would be serious, no matter whether it was Rhode Island making the claims. But that Texas has brought these constitutional grievances before the SCOTUS raises the seriousness to potentially existential levels. Texas brings these grievances as the representative of not less than half the nation--in terms of population, land area, and economic importance--and as an economic powerhouse.
We live in interesting times.
ADDENDUM: How the SCOTUS tries to resolve and defuse this constitutional crisis is beyond my speculative pay grade. But Texas has certainly upped the ante.
Now if some additional states join with Texas the pressure will increase even more on the court to rule.ReplyDelete
Amen! (What are you waiting for, Florida?)Delete
I just emailed our state attorney asking exactly that. Please do the same!!!Delete
Iowa what are you waiting for our governor and both houses are republican controlled .Delete
Isn't the relevant clause relating to the 'chusing' of electors Article II, Section 1:ReplyDelete
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Ugh, Thanks. I was rushing to get out the door.Delete
Florida? Ohio? S. Carolina? S. Dakota? Missouri? Let’s roll!ReplyDelete
MN, VA, AZ, NVDelete
Well, if it is the executive branch of the state governments that joins the suit, I don’t see how states with a D Governor would be inclined to join. That would apply to three of the states you list, Mark. About Doocey in Az, I have no opinion since the state seems to be controlled by the Widow McCain.Delete
What I was thinking when I wrote that was that those states are ripe to be named DEFENDANTS. Sorry I wasn't clear.Delete
And I wasn’t clear, either. I forget that secretaries of state can belong to a political party different from that of the Governor. We had that in my state in the last administration. So, as Kirk mentions below, there are more possibilities than I thought at first.Delete
Personally, I think Va is a little shady too.Delete
The pleadi is passive.ReplyDelete
Should say Since u are going to allow certian states descretion in what part of constituition to follow, we just want u to know we will be having certian federal employees removed from protections under state laws and will be sending in reduced tax revenue. We wish u well - as u drive your electeic cars.
Texas has established a new narrative.ReplyDelete
The old msm / deep-state narrative was efforts to overturn the fraud are being defeated in court, and besides there are not enough provable fraudulent votes to elect Trump anyway.
Excellent choice of words to describe Roberts - Feckless. He tried so hard to avoid controversy, yet ended creating more.
What in God's name was he thinking when he wrote that boneheaded 4-4 decision? Roger B. Taney, you ain't seen nuthin' yet?Delete
This is hardly a novel thought on this site, but Roberts is on some sort of mission very different from the balls-and-strikes one he was supposedly hired for. Whatever its actual design, it's ultimately political, and it purposely or incidentally serves anti-Constitution, anti-We The People ends.Delete
What motivates him, I can't say, but "what he is thinking" is how to serve that mission, not uphold our laws or our Constitution. No innocent alternatives can explain his behavior since at least the ACA farce. (Eg, "No, Mr. Trump, I will NOT allow you to ask Census respondents if they are citizens." That isn't bad thinking; it's corrupt motivation.)
Legendary political lawyer Roy Cohn use to say:Delete
"Don't tell me about the law. Tell who's the judge!"
The election suits clearly demonstrate Cohn grasp to the legal reality of our legal system.
Ironically, Sydney Powell documented the arbitrariness of judge's decisions in her book "Justice Lies". Accordingly, I can't help but wonder why she thinks she can prevail in such a politically charged case.
"What motivates him, I can't say, but "what he is thinking" is how to serve that mission, not uphold our laws or our Constitution."Delete
I have read that his name appears on the flight logs of Epstein's "Lolita Express".
Why she thinks she can prevail in such a politically charged case?Delete
Maybe she knows, that the ChiComs were it this so bigly, that she expects some (judge-controlling) elites to decide, that they'd better stop the ChiCom freight train now, before the chance dies forever.
Robert B. Taney.Delete
My new blog article:ReplyDelete
How long did the imaginary burst waterpipe delay the ballot-counting?
WE ARE ALL TEXANSReplyDelete
I think these 9 states will join.ReplyDelete
"Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, includes Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron, Oklahoma AG Michael J. Hunter, and the AGs from Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Florida"
Iowa should since our house and senate and governor are all Republicans . Iowa get off your bottoms and join TexasDelete
I assume other states may enjoin this lawsuit? Concerns of secession are real. The trick is to get the Democrat SC justices to also understand this. I'm not sure about Sotomayer though as she seems like a 'box of rocks'.ReplyDelete
Not "enjoin", just "join." And yes they will.Delete
The right approach, and always was the right approach for the courts, is to order an immediate audit of the signatures on the absentee ballots in all of the states- this can be done with random sampling in just a couple of days under court supervision. This has been the issue for since the election- that the states with Democrat control of the Secretary of State offices, the state AG offices, and the governorships turned off the main security feature of absentee voting- signature verification (I suspect this has been an issue in the states that have long term use of mail in voting, too). In some states, this was done at the county level (one of the issues in the Texas lawsuit). Given the numbers of ballots mailed out, I think up to 10% of them are invalid in certain states' largest counties where the rejection rates fell to a number indistiguishable from zero.ReplyDelete
I don't know what the court will do with the Texas lawsuit, but I did like Cassander's dream in the previous thread- that the election results are tossed in the contested states and new elections are ordered. There is time to do this- other commenters are correct- the only deadline that matters is January 20th at this point since it is the only relevant date mentioned in the Constitution itself.
The state courts should have done that. I'm not sure how this works with the SCOTUS.Delete
But isn't that like, a murderer fails killing the victim and is given a second chance? If these states do another election, who can guarantee fairness this time?Delete
I don't trust them anymore.
@Kirk. While I think "fairness" in the sense of ballot integrity can *theoretically* and *someday* be ensured (All paper ballots. Cameras on at all times of every ballot box from the moment they're put in place right through the end of all the counting - done with reps of both parties every step of the way. No mail-ins - just absentee with rigorous application, chain of custody, signature-matching and public witness requirements. Cleaned up voter rolls. Voter ID for all. Etc.), there's still the question of the corrupt media and Big-Tech operations that corrupt and skew the electoral/political environment. That is something that could be dealt with at least to some extent by the 2022 mid-terms, but not immediately and of course not with Democrats running DC.Delete
If I'm a 100-meter sprint guy in the Olympics, and I shove to the ground the guy who's running next to me, they don't just give me the medal and say that unless that guy can prove that he would've finished ahead of me if I hadn't shoved him down, he loses. They disqualify me, and that's that.
My thinking is the same here, which means that I agree with your conclusion. And of course I don't see the sort of ballot integrity measures I mentioned above being put in place over the next couple months, so that part is really just academic - at least for now.
I don't understand why the president hasn't come out and said "Anyone that certifies a fraudulent election will be arrested and hanged. If you come forward now, come clean and start exposing who has committed crimes against this country, we will go easy on you, otherwise you are in dire straights and will be punished to the highest extent of the law!" That would most likely be a game changer, don't you think?!ReplyDelete
I think that DJT wants a calm and peaceful transition to his second term. Only if that doesn't work, he will pull out the hard measures. So far he appears to be quite sure that he gets it and doesn't need the sledgehammer.Delete
I assume that DJT knew of this new Texas case in SCOTUS for some time since it was prepared.
Interesting point. Yes, this case was a long time in the prep, and Trump certainly knew.Delete
It is interesting how Texas claims standing insofar as it references the Senate structure and the fact that the Vice President is a tie break vote in the event of equality. That is as state issue rather than an individual. Clever.ReplyDelete
Count on it--some clever lawyering went into this, and it didn't happen overnight.Delete
"and it didn't happen overnight.Delete
That part cheers me, knowing something somewhere good in one or more states has actually been going on for a while.
Since the Constitution gives the power to the Legislatures, The Legislatures in the various States do not need permission to meet, nor require the Governor to call a special session.ReplyDelete
This view is supported by the most important rule of Constitutional construction; "the words mean what they say and mean what they say."
If the Drafters of the Constitution wanted Governors to have any input, they would have said "States"; and not "Legislatures". Doesn't get any more simple and basic than that.
I've said many times... Give me a states backing with a few good lawyers and I'll give you a legit revolution.ReplyDelete
This is how those things get started. Now let's see 20 something others join this and shut these guys down.
Totally agree with you, DJL, and with everything Mark says here, also.ReplyDelete
I accidentally commented the above instead of replied directly to DJL, but oh well.Delete
Which justice decides if the court takes the case? I think TX is Alito's state.ReplyDelete
My belief is that this isn't discretionary. They will be required to decide this.Delete
The judicial Power shall extend to ... to Controversies between two or more States; III,2
It's original jurisdiction, therefore not discretionary. There is nowhere else to go to seek a remedyDelete
The most significant thing I've read so far on the Texas suit.
Although SCOTUS has said in the past they have discretion even as to suits where they have original jurisdiction, Texas's brief argues that this case merits that discretion (section II) [beginning at page 22], but then in section III [beginning at page 34] that they really don't have discretion:Delete
"Although this Court’s original jurisdiction precedents would justify the Court’s hearing this matter under the Court’s discretion, see Section II, supra, Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the Court’s review is not discretionary. To the contrary, the plain text of § 1251(a) provides exclusive jurisdiction, not discretionary jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). In addition, no other remedy exists for these interstate challenges, see Section I.G, supra, and some court must have jurisdiction for these weighty issues" (emphasis in the original). They go on to cite a pre-revolutionary war case from England: "if there is no other mode of trial, that alone will give the King’s courts a jurisdiction."
That type of detailed briefing didn't happen overnight. It's not seat of the pants stuff.Delete
The real danger during the Cold War was the possibility of someone doing something really stupid and thereby setting in motion a chain of events leading to a nuclear exchange. It would be a bit like playing with matches in a forest littered with deadfall. One mishap can lead to an enormous catastrophe.ReplyDelete
The same is true of current events. The idiots inhabiting the DC bubble (and their fellow travelers on Wall Street and Silicon Valley) genuinely believe that they can finesse a coup via election theft and quell any rebellion that may arise from the death of the rule of law.
This arrogance stems from a belief that they are immune from any consequences that may result. And this has emboldened them to do monumentally stupid things. The Texas suit is a shot across the bow. Should SCOTUS shirk it's responsibility, it's Katy bar the door time.
I agree top to bottom. Doesn't at all mean I'm ready to grab a gun and start shooting, just that this is legit reckless behavior with unknown horrible consequences, and thank God at least one state is getting involved. Like DJL said up top, let there be many more after Texas.Delete
I haven't been watching the news, so I wonder how the worthless national news media is approaching this Texas lawsuit? Their typical response to bad news (for them and their cause) is to ignore it and keep their mushroom viewers totally in the dark; but this is not going to stay hidden. Perhaps their goofy fact checkers can fact check whether Texas actually filed the suit to stall for time...ReplyDelete
I also wonder if this is the big news coming out that Trump mentioned yesterday, or is there yet more to come?
I'd been watching SCOTUSBlog all morning to see how they'd cover it (if at all). It took them until 1:20pm EST before they wrote anything about it (framed, of course, as meritless long shot). I guess it was too much to expect them to report on the substance.Delete
They'll wait until Trump takes the oath, and claim "no one could have seen it coming" :)Delete
Wasn't there supposed to be something happening by noon today?ReplyDelete
Just read that AZ Legislature has invoked Art. II, Sect. 1.ReplyDelete
Saw it here. All the other sites I find it on link back to this site. They claim Google is suppressing it. At this point may be valid, may be not.
Please, those of you that live in red states write your state attorneys right now asking them to join. I did this within 5 minutes of seeing what Texas did asking Florida to join them.ReplyDelete
It's easy and only takes a few minutes to do.
Done - feel free to copy and paste with an edit to your state (with respects and thanks to Mark for part use of his language).Delete
Today, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit alleging 4 states (PA, MI, GA, WI) violated the US Constitution in two places regarding the US presidential election.
This lawsuit puts the defendants, and the state of Texas in front of the US SCOTUS immediately.
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the United States Constitution - a person with a shred of self-awareness of their own confirmation biases - can see the patent violations of Article II and of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clauses.
As a life-long citizen of Kansas, I don't understand how Kansas does not also file suit against these 4 states, for the same reasons as did Texas.
Texas has drawn a line in the sand. They understand that the Constitution is the glue that holds this Republic together.
For if these lawless, unelected judicial zealots in PA, MI, GA, WI are to succeed, ALL FAIR elections in states like Kansas would be nullified.
Get in the fight, or risk losing the Republic.
Sullivan case dismissed.ReplyDelete
Not to change the subject but:ReplyDelete
What happened to the Alito decision that was suppose to be make at 9 AM today?
There was NO Alito decision that was supposed to be made at 9AM.Delete
You wrote on 12/7Delete
"As you read, bear in mind that the date Alito originally set was December 9th. He then changed that date to December 8th at 9:00 am--thus providing the rest of the day for deliberation:
So what was supposed to happen this morning? I thought it had something to with an injunction discussed by SWC.
But, I am seriously out of my depth in these matters.
What was due at 9AM was the PA reply. I specified that. The SCOTUS's day proceeds from there, dealing with PA and the TX case and maybe other things.Delete
Thank you as I said I'm out of my depth!Delete
I was going to write a comment explaining why Texas' suit matters, and why the court might take it up, but Selim Bradley does so in a very, very concise way:ReplyDelete
"get 270 EVs worth of states to just go hog wild on ballot stuffing etc & that means the votes of the 268 never matter again. They conduct fair elections that are nullified by insane elections in the states without rules."
This almost exactly what has happened in this election, and what the Democrats plan is with regards to mail in vote.
Its on the docket now.ReplyDelete
I wholly support an audit of signature verification and then declare the election void. Let the all the non-presidential "winners" take their seats then schedule a re-run the entire election sans the presidency in February or March with all the pre-Covid rules in place.ReplyDelete
Matt Barnes on this Sunday's Viva Frei and Barnes said something really interesting. He says right now the burden of proof of fraud rests with the plaintiff BUT the defendant has all the evidence and can slow walk it. He says flip the script. Ie. if the plaintiff can show high evidence of fraud it is the burden of the defendant to prove there is not fraud.
Clear standards about asserting fraud would have to be laid out with some evidence standards. Statement @ minute 26 mark. This whole segment is worth a listen.
That would blow up the big cheating mills that are the major metropolitan areas. An elegant solution to a perennial problem. What say you?
I am Spartacus.
I heard Rush say that Alan Dershowitz was interviewed on Fox and asked about the Texas lawsuit. Rush said Dershowitz said the case was inventive but would probably not succeed. Well, I'm not a lawyer but my sense is this is exactly the kind of case the conservatives on the SCOTUS are looking for; one that can wrap all the shenanigans up in one big package and put a bow on it. The more states that join with Texas the stronger the case will be.ReplyDelete
Finding a vehicle to combine all the cases seems to be what would make Texas suit the most appealing to the conservative SC justices. The Dersh might be right if there are no politics in the US SC...lol.Delete
Ken Starr on Hannity radio a few minutes ago: very bullish on both the PA and TX cases seeking SCOTUS consideration.Delete
Turley is on Fox now, dissing this TX bid for relief, and seeing the PA ruling today as a big blow (and final) blow to DJT.Delete
He does go on to rip Sully rant vs. Flynn.
To clarify, he called this PA result a final blow to DJT's plausible legal bids.Delete
He added, that DJT's real road left is in the legislatures.
SCOTUS just rejected Pa case. NYT reported it a minute ago. Since I no longer subscribe, I just get annoying news flashes.ReplyDelete
Scotus denied Kelly etal from PA https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdfReplyDelete
Did they take the Texas case? It says "docketed" but not sure what that meansReplyDelete
#SCOTUS has *docketed* the case, which is different from agreeing to hear. Docketing means that the case has met the filing requirements; the case has to be docketed for the justices to consider it. It is 22O155, Texas v. Pennsylvania: https://supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
How often does the Court decide to hear a case, before the Defense has had the chance to argue against it being heard?Delete
In a two liner? What's going on?ReplyDelete
I would note that the Court denied petitioner's application for injunctive relief. It made no ruling on the merits.
Distinction? Beats me.
Citizens Free Press is reporting that Louisiana and Alabama have joined Texas in the lawsuit. I expect more states will follow their lead. Surprised Missouri wasn't one of the first to join.ReplyDelete
word on the streets is that 7 states joined so far. i bet we gna see more soon.ReplyDelete
Thank you Florida!ReplyDelete