While many are not willing to admit it, the Texas election lawsuit was the last real chance that President Donald Trump had to stall the official declaration of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States.

The lawsuit itself was doomed to fail for multiple Constitutional reasons, but perhaps the biggest flaw in it is that it was a group of outside states seeking to overturn election results in a handful of other states based on the fact that those states changed the rules in the middle of those elections going on. Critics of the lawsuit were right in saying that would be a dangerous precedent because that opens the door for ultra-progressive states to try and use the courts to force their values on conservative states.

But the idea behind the lawsuit was the correct one. States should not be allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game, and if there is one fight that needs to continue beyond this election, it is a fight to ensure that our elections systems are as trustworthy as possible and that the policies and procedures in place to run an election within a state are as fair to the voters as possible. //

This is not about overturning the election, mind you. Not at this point. There does not seem to be a legal avenue anymore to do that, and many of the legal avenues conservatives were led to believe existed were badly mishandled by the President’s lawyers and his allies. Instead, this needs to be about overturning the idea that states are allowed to change their election rules on a whim.

That is, I think, the real scandal here. That state officials are making changes to statutory election laws without their legislative branches being involved (in Georgia’s case, I believe the governor was given the power to make changes by the legislature, so the water is a little murkier there). There is, especially after this election, a considerable lack of trust in our electoral process. That has to change, and it needs to start with voters knowing their votes will count.

After their party’s presidential nominee lost in the Electoral College, some House members lined up to object to and challenge the results during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes.

House Democrats made 11 objections. In each case, then-outgoing Vice President Joe Biden—presiding over the session in his role as Senate president—asked if the objection had a Senate sponsor.

Then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she didn’t encourage the objection, but would “support” the objections from her caucus. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., demanded a senator join the challenge against certifying the results.

With no senators backing the objections, members of Congress counted the votes, and Biden said, “It’s over,” gaveling the official end of the 2016 election with a victory, giving it to President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court sided with a rural Colorado church Tuesday that challenged the state Democrat governor’s COVID rules restricting building capacity in some parts of the state.

The 6-3 decision overturned lower court rulings that had upheld Gov. Jared Polis’s church gathering limits to a maximum of 25 percent or 50 people, whichever is fewer, and ordered lower courts to re-examine the case.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Monday that residents, not county clerks, are responsible for determining whether their voter status warrants an absentee ballot submission without providing voter ID. //

In a unanimous ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overruled election officials who implemented their own amendments to state law, arguing that the state Democratic governor’s stay-home order used at least in part to justify the changes — which was also shut down by the high bench this spring — did not render residents indefinitely confined and therefore did not warrant an exemption from providing ID.

“County clerks are not to interpret Wisconsin’s election laws and make declarations based on those interpretations,” Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote. //

comes the same day the high bench upheld the results of the November contest granting the state’s 10 electoral votes for former Vice President Joe Biden following a razor-thin 20,000 vote victory. The court argued in a 4-3 decision that the president brought his case to the court far too late for no reason other than to manipulate the outcome in favor of the Republican incumbent.

“The issues raised in this case, had they been pressed earlier, could have been resolved before the election,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote. “The challenges by the Campaign in this case … come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”

The issue of “standing” has well established legal “principles” that courts rely on at the outset of a case to determine whether the matter that is the subject of the complaint is properly brought in the court in which it is filed.

These principles arise out of the “case and controversy” requirements of Article III of the Constitution which are at the foundation of the federal civil justice system. In layman’s terms, it means that a federal court must sometimes make a decision as to whether the complaint concerns a real “claim” for which a judicial resolution and remedy is the only appropriate avenue for relief open to the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff who has brought the claim is the correct party to do so. Does the plaintiff have a real and concrete interest in the outcome that is different from the interest of the public at large?

The decision on “standing” is a “judgment” based on the nature of the claim raised by the complaint, the nature of the plaintiff who has raised the claim, and the relationship of the plaintiff to the claim raised.

Also, and important to the Supreme Court, “standing” reflects respect for “separation of powers” by giving the judicial branch a basis to reject efforts to resolve disputes through the courts that are, in actuality, political disputes that should be left to the political branches to resolve. //

The language used by the Court yesterday was as follows:

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

The fact that the Trump campaign or other plaintiffs have raised many of the same factual claims in lower courts — which the various responses go into in great detail — is actually irrelevant as to Texas because those outcomes have no bearing on Texas’s entitlement to defend its own interests by raising the same or similar claims. There is always the potential that Texas will present the claims in a different manner, or that Texas has accumulated evidence that the earlier litigants lacked.

Further, many of the outcomes in the lower courts that the Defendant states place so much value in were not decisions on the merits, the were jurisdictional decisions or decisions based on a lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs who brought them. //

The oppositions assure the Supreme Court that they conducted the elections and counted the votes in accordance with the statutes in each state. But simple denials of a plaintiff’s claims are not a basis to short-circuit a lawsuit. Plaintiffs are entitled to offer to the fact finder — the nine Justices in cases of “original jurisdiction” — evidence that contradicts the denials made by the defendant states and to contest the defendant states’ denials through cross-examination.

Many of the explanations offered by the defendant states are plausible and reasonable. If they are true they should hold up to scrutiny. If they do hold up to scrutiny, and the Supreme Court finds that Texas has not sustained its burden to prove the allegations it has made, that would act to reassure the country that Joe Biden’s election is not the product of fraud or corruption by partisan state and local actors. In that respect, the prospect of having the 2020 election forensically scrutinized by the Supreme Court should be welcomed by all.

Four years ago Justices Thomas and Alito took the view that the Supreme Court cannot, in an exercise of discretion it has conferred upon itself, deny States a forum to litigate disputes with other states because, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the only forum where such disputes can be resolved.

What is unknown on this day is the views of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on this key issue. //

The Texas Complaint is not slapped together. It is the result of extensive research and drafting. It was likely a work-in-progress for weeks, and I do not believe that work would have been undertaken on a lark as a political stunt.

Those on both sides of this partisan issue who are dismissing the Complaint as an unserious effort are failing to consider what I believe to be a crucial consideration in whether or not to allow Texas — and the other 18 states who have now joined — to “have their day in court.”

There is only one forum where Texas can present what it believes is evidence supporting the allegations it makes in the Complaint against the four defendant States. Only one tribunal has the authority to hear and consider witnesses and documentary evidence of this dispute.

Monday essentially will be the real presidential Election Day, or is scheduled to be, as electors gather in their respective state capitols to cast votes.

When voters pick their candidate for president on Election Day every four years, as well as in early and mail-in voting this year, they actually choose a slate of electors associated with a candidate.

Each of those electors later casts his or her vote for president on behalf of the state and according to its election results.

In past presidential election years, the day the Electoral College convenes to vote goes largely ignored, as most of the public stops paying attention after Election Day.

What recourse do one or more states have in the face of evidence that one or more other states have failed to produce — intentionally or by negligence — an election process and ballot count with integrity?

If the Supreme Court is not a forum where such disputes can be aired and resolved, what forum is there? Congress is controlled by the same partisanship that is said to be the cause of the irregularities at the state and local level. //

I have concerns that the Justices will view these matters as nonjusticiable — meaning that while there may be validity in the claims raised by Texas, the claims are political disputes between the partisan branches which they must resolve outside the judicial branch.

What other means might exist for Texas to resolve its claims is where the difficulty sets in.

The fact that Biden is being investigated in the District of Delaware means the case involves more than just tax issues. Tax Division attorneys, and the IRS Criminal Division Special Agents who investigate the cases, have very limited authority to bring non-tax charges. Cases that involve both potential tax crimes and other financial crimes are usually handled jointly — a combined effort of a Tax Division attorney and an Assistant United States Attorney in the district where there is venue for the charges. The fact that Biden announced that his attorney was contacted by the US Attorney for the District of Delaware confirms that this is a joint-investigation and that the investigation is based in Delaware.

That means that both the alleged tax charges and any other criminal charges are both properly venued in Delaware. //

The combination of this investigation and health considerations will lead to the resignation of Joe Biden from office. Health reasons will be the public explanation, but there is no way for Joe Biden to escape the web of criminal entanglements that Hunter Biden was involved in with the Chinese and others based on the information that became public prior to the election. I’m confident there is much more evidence than what has been seen.

Blue State Deplorable
3 hours ago edited
More liberal insanity. The fault rests with the homeowner defending his or her property and family, not the intruder intent upon appropriating another’s property or, worse, doing bodily harm. How warped and naive can you possibly be Congresswoman?

3
Reply
−
Avatar
Castlesofstonesoulnglory
3 hours ago
Translation : You must attempt to outrun a bullet before firing your own. Home invaders don't come in with a baseball bat or a knife, so you'd better be very, very fast.

Both suits center on Facebook’s purchases of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 for $1 billion and $19 billion respectively, while also targeting smaller firms. The acquisitions, plaintiffs allege, illegally stifled online competition. The FTC is seeking to force Facebook sell Instagram and WhatsApp.

Texas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.

how is the Court prepared to respond if it were to grant the injunction against the Pennsylvania state defendants, and on January 6, 2021, the Joint Session of Congress nevertheless counts the slate of Electors already certified and sent by the Pennsylvania Governor for Joe Biden?

There is no functional method I can envision where the Court would attempt to place itself deeper in this controversy between January 6 and January 21 if the Congress was to certify the vote of the Electoral College which included 20 Electoral votes from Pennsylvania in favor of Joe Biden. If it issues an Order that the political branches ignore along partisan lines, the Court will be damaged as an institution. I think there is no question that the Democrats, in their overriding desire to be rid of Donald Trump and deny him a second term, will disregard the damage they would do to the Court by ignoring any Order and moving forward. Under the Electoral Count Act, even if the GOP controlled the Senate, a dispute regarding the validity of Electors that cannot be resolved between the two chambers results in the acceptance by default of the Electors cerfitied by the State’s Governor — meaning the Electors named for Joe Biden would be counted.

This fact is, in my view, the practical counter-balance to any sentiment on the Court to insert itself at this time by creating any form of “retrospective” relief that addresses the validity of the Pennsylania “mail in” voting scheme.

Rndguy50 Rbennett1701
14 hours ago
My hunch is SCOTUS rules the PA election was unconstitutional due to changing of election laws by the executive and judicial branches. As such the electors selected on Nov 3rd and the resulting certification are fruits of the poisonous tree. This makes PA's current slate of electors invalid. If the electors are not valid they can't vote at the EC. I believe this is the 'smack down' alluded to in the article. And to be honest this smack down has the potential to be epic.

If SCOTUS wants to stop the madness and prevent shenanigans in future elections, they almost have to lay waste to PA. If SCOTUS lays waste to PA it will have a direct effect/impact (by means of the new precedent) on WI and GA lawsuits/contests that were just filed.

“We’ve uncovered some fraudulent plans to register a bunch of people to vote down in South Florida. It’s the easiest thing in the world for these local counties to purge their voter lists of deceased individuals. All they have to do is go to the Social Security system and crosscheck against their deceased Social Security recipients on their list and then purge them off of their voter list.” //

The ease with which someone is able to steal the ballot of a deceased person and cast an illegitimate vote should disturb, alarm, and outrage every American citizen, no matter what side of the aisle they sit on.

“To protect our democratic process and Americans’ faith in our elections, we must ensure that deceased individuals are not allowed to remain on state voter rolls.” //

“My bill will prevent any funds from the U.S. Departments of Transportation or Education, with the exception of those going toward law enforcement agency grants, from going to counties of any state that do not annually check their voter lists against the Social Security Administration’s most recent death records in order to purge them of any individuals found to be deceased.

“All elected officials, from your local city council member to your U.S. President, have an obligation to obey the law and prevent fraud in our elections, and Congress should not be awarding taxpayer dollars to any counties or states that refuse to do the job they swore to do.”

An election integrity watchdog said the current Electoral College deadlines not only have “zero constitutional basis” but are preventing states from fulfilling their legal and ethical obligations to ensure free and fair elections.

The Amistad Project of the non-partisan Thomas More Society released the study (pdf) on Friday, making the case that the only constitutionally-set date in the election process is Jan. 20, when the next president of the United States will be sworn in. All other dates, including the “safe harbor” deadline, the Electoral College vote on Dec. 14, and even the congressional vote count on Jan. 6, are dates set by federal law, which the paper argues are “arbitrary” and founded on obsolete concerns.

The bigger problem we have as a nation is that we are acquiescing to voting processes that are not capable of being verified and tested in a meaningful fashion during the time period available under the statutes and Constitutional provisions that determine how Presidents are selected. The voting process is captive to partisan political interests with a motivation to bend it to their needs. Then, when their actions are questioned, those raising the concerns learn that all the “evidence” that might establish what took place is within the control of the same partisan actors, and everything becomes subject to efforts to “run out the clock” on any bona fide challenges.

The country needs uniform voting standards and procedures across all 50 states. The security and integrity protocols need to be the same across all 50 states. The audit and electoral contest procedures need to be the same across all 50 states.

“Convenience” to the voter needs to be way down the list of considerations about how the voting process takes place, and can never be a justification for sacrificing security. Make Presidential Election day a national holiday once every four years so the vast majority of citizens do not need to try to “work it in” to their schedule.

And the overriding consideration for voting integrity needs to be that each invalidly cast vote is the embodiment of the violation of the right to vote of a legitimate voter who chose another candidate, regardless of party.

THAT is the ultimate disenfranchisement, and it corrupts democracy when partisan interests encourage such acts in order to secure power.

The calendar is obviously working against there being a remedy available to the campaign in Wisconsin prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. This point needs to be driven home in as part of a need for all states to reconsider the “mail-in” ballot schemes they have adopted. There simply is not enough time in the aftermath of a Presidential election, between the day of the election and the meeting of the Electoral College, to properly investigate and challenge millions of “mail-in” ballots — and that very fact only incentivizes the even further expansion of the use of such a process.

In dismissing the Kelly complaint challenging votes cast pursuant to Act 77, the Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by “laches” because the Plaintiffs did not seek to challenge the statute when it was passed.

The Plaintiffs have clearly established a legal “Catch-22” by which the Penn. Supreme Court has shut the doors of the Courthouse to any meaningful challenge to Act 77.

I think this was done ENTIRELY by design, anticipating that the majority of the members of the Penn. Supreme Court would not be able to resist their partisan proclivities in moving quickly to dismiss the complaint and thereby springing the trap laid for them by Plaintiffs and their counsel.