Image 01 Image 03

Legal Civil War – 17 States Join Texas Lawsuit In Supreme Court Against PA, GA, MI, and WI (UPDATE)

Legal Civil War – 17 States Join Texas Lawsuit In Supreme Court Against PA, GA, MI, and WI (UPDATE)

By the time the final count of states is made, the country likely will be roughly split in half before the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS could flip it off with a one-sentence denial without explanation, like it did in the prior suit, a nation so legally divided makes it harder not at least to consider the merits and give an explained decision.

Texas has sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking, among other things, permission to file a Bill of Complaint, and emergency injunctive relief. Responses must be filed by December 10, at 3 p.m.

We covered the filing yesterday, Texas Sues PA, GA, MI, and WI In U.S. Supreme Court To Have Legislatures Appoint Electors:

The lawsuit is in the form of a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint. (The Brief in support of the Motion appears starting at page 50 of the pdf. A more complete pdf. with all filings, including the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order is available here starting at pg. 111)

The relief sought is a delay of the December 14 statutory deadline for electors to vote, arguing that the Supreme Court has the power to delay that deadline since “[t]he only date that is mandated under the Constitution … is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.” The purpose of the delay would be for state legislatures to consider appointing the electors given the unreliability in the way the elections were handled.

This may be the last judicial opportunity, since the U.S. Supreme Court denied injunctive relief as to the Pennsylvania certification in a separate case, with state supreme courts, such as Nevada and Arizona, also denying relief.

Keep in mind that while the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states, such jurisdiction is not mandatory. That is why among the things Texas seeks permission to file the proposed Bill of Complaint.

Throughout the day various Attorney Generals from several other states tweeted their support for the Texas action. That support was finalized with an Amicus Brief filed by Missouri and 16 other states in support of Texas:


The Bill of Complaint raises constitutional questions of great public importance that warrant this Court’s review. First, like every similar provision in the Constitution, the separation-of-powers provision of the Electors Clause provides an important structural check on government designed to protect individual liberty. By allocating authority over Presidential electors to the “Legislature thereof” in each State, the Clause separates powers both vertically and horizontally, and it confers authority on the branch of state government most responsive to the democratic will. Encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures by other state actors violate the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty.

The unconstitutional encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures in this case raise particularly grave concerns. For decades, responsible observers have cautioned about the risks of fraud and abuse in voting by mail, and they have urged the adoption of statutory safeguards to prevent such fraud and abuse. In the numerous cases identified in the Bill of Complaint, non-legislative actors in each Defendant State repeatedly stripped away the statutory safeguards that the “Legislature thereof” had enacted to protect against fraud in voting by mail.

These changes removed protections that responsible actors had recommended for decades to guard against fraud and abuse in voting by mail. The allegations in the Bill of Complaint raise important questions about election integrity and public confidence in the administration of Presidential elections. This Court should grant Plaintiff leave to file the Bill of Complaint.

These states say they have the following interest in the case:

“In the context of a Presidential election,” state actions “implicate a uniquely important national interest,” because “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 794–95 (1983). “For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.” Id.

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.1

Amici have several important interests in this case. First, the States have a strong interest in safeguarding the separation of powers among state actors in the regulation of Presidential elections. The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 carefully separates power among state actors, and it assigns a specific function to the “Legislature thereof” in each State. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. Our system of federalism relies on separation of powers to preserve liberty at every level of government, and the separation of powers in the Electors Clause is no exception. The States have a strong interest in preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thus safeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens.

Second, amici States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other States. When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the “Legislature thereof” in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States.

Third, for similar reasons, amici States have a strong interest in safeguarding against fraud in voting by mail during Presidential elections. “Everyvoter” in a federal election, “has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974). Plaintiff’s Bill of Complaint alleges that nonlegislative actors in the Defendant States stripped away important safeguards against fraud in voting by mail that had been enacted by the Legislature in each State. Amici States share a vital interest in protecting the integrity of the truly national election for President and Vice President of the United States.

I don’t think 17 states supporting Texas in itself changes the legalities of what is before SCOTUS. But it certainly changes the optics of the case both publicly and before the Justices. This no longer is Texas going rogue.

You can read here some of the arguments against, primarily that a state has no “standing” to seek to change the result in another state.

Additional states are beginning to file. Arizona has filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amicus Brief, which is unclear as to its ultimate position other than that the court should rule quickly (the proposed Brief itself is not in the docket yet). It’s fair to assume that by the deadline on Thursday, numerous states will have filed in opposition to Texas.

Separately, Donald Trump has filed a Motion to Intervene:

As set forth in the accompanying brief and Complaint in Intervention, election officials in each of the Defendant States altered or otherwise failed to enforce state election laws in the conduct of the 2020 election. The violations of state election law, which is the “manner” the Legislatures of the States have established for choosing presidential electors, violates the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution and thus this matter arises under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Moreover, as explained more fully in the complaint filed by Texas, the number of ballots affected by illegal conduct of state elections officials greatly exceeds the current margin between Plaintiff in Intervention and his opponent in the election for the Office of President in each of the respective Defendant States, and the four Defendant States collectively have a sufficient number of electoral votes to affect the result of the vote in the Electoral College for the Office of President. Proposed Plaintiff in Intervention therefore clearly has a stake in the outcome of this litigation.

This Court should grant leave to file the Complaint in Intervention.

By the time the final count of states is made, the country likely will be roughly split in half before the Supreme Court. While SCOTUS could flip it off with a one-sentence denial without explanation, like it did in the prior suit, a nation so legally divided makes it harder not at least to consider the merits and give an explained decision.

What we have here is a legal civil war.

UPDATE December 10, 3 p.m.

The court docket page still seems to be updating as of this hour.

Nation Divided: At Least 24 States Oppose Texas Supreme Court Lawsuit, 17 Support


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“What we have here is a legal civil war.”

Or is it the legal phase of the civil war?

    DaveGinOly in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 9, 2020 at 8:12 pm

    “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means.”
    Carl von Clausewitz

    redc1c4 in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 9, 2020 at 8:25 pm

    the Left fired the first shot with their election fraud.

    this is just the first shot back.

    and, if Roberts doesn’t do something, the precious reputation of SCOTUS that he’s always blathering about will be at the same level as that of a schizophrenic crack whore or meth addict.

    Secession wis out only hope.

    We also have to leave behind the GOP. It – and all but a handful in it – left with them.

    If anyone here ever again quotes Karl Rove, I am going to take it personally.

    Connivin Caniff in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 10, 2020 at 3:05 pm

    This case will be dismissed: No actionable controversy, no standing, no case. Republicans should have legal-bombed each state a year or years ago, just like the D’Rats, but, as usual, they didn’t. Too late. Too bad. The “Republican Party” apparatus isn’t even on the Trumpers’ side. In contrast the D’Rats always maintain their solid, elbows-locked, “Flying Wedge.” Doesn’t look good.

Nearly 40% of the 50 states joining this suit! Wow!

Of course the left will predictably claim (admittedly with some logic backing the claim up) that no way does that 40% represent 40% of the population. But that observation is really neither here nor there since our Constitution operates with three principal actors, the people, the states, and their joint creation, fedgov itself.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to fscarn. | December 9, 2020 at 8:02 pm

    When LI announced the lawsuit I suggested that other states pile on, this is great. Now, will SCOTUS do the right thing?

    ss396 in reply to fscarn. | December 10, 2020 at 10:27 am

    Those States have 186 electoral votes among them, which is 35% of the total 535. Even discounting the two EVs per State awarded for their Senators, it still leaves 148 EVs of the 435, or 34%, of the EVs awarded for their Representatives – which are a representation of the people.

Especially as there is no other court with jurisdiction.

The Court owes the States and the Nation to get this decided, and to legitimize (to the extent possible) the election. Otherwise, the result will always be subject to dispute and the ability to govern will diminish.

    If SCOTUS is really being threatened with violent retribution, they might read up on the recent history of the Colombia Supreme Court beginning with the Palace of Justice siege which left almost half of the 25 justices dead.

    Despite this horrible crime, brave men kept stepping up to replace the downed justices and continue the struggle under the most dangerous conditions imaginable. Even President Uribe was eventually arrested years later.

    Is our Supreme Court made of lesser men/women? Colombia fought for their liberty in our own lifetimes and clearly deserve to be free having risked everything. How do we compare? Is the challenge too inconvenient for us to bother? Gotta go! Tee time in 40 minutes!

    “Otherwise, the result will always be subject to dispute and the ability to govern will diminish.”

    Well, hopefully, the Democrat Party will FINALLY be able to sell all that “Selected, not Elected” and “Not My President” gear they had from 2000 and 2016……

I was a little concerned for Kansas since we have a Dem governor right now (thank you Republican squishes) and a moderate Republican AG (Schmidt), but it’s nice to see us aboard.

We are going to be left with a situation where more than 75 million people, one way or another, are going to lose faith in the system. Either you’ll have more than 75 million people who believe that the election was determined by lawfare (and therefore incentivizing them to disparage the law), or you’ll have more than 75 million people who believe that the election was determined by voter fraud (and therefore incentivizing them to disparage the idea of free and fair elections). Both of those ideals, respect for the law, and faith in our elections are pillars of our republic.

Can we survive one of them falling?

Or is it the case that we already have a social justice warlord left that disparages the law, and the only thing we can possibly do to retain our republic is to ensure our faith in elections, by punishing those who would use voter fraud to win?

    DaveGinOly in reply to jhkrischel. | December 9, 2020 at 8:19 pm

    I would rather have SCOTUS get it right and alienate 75 million citizens than for them to get it wrong and alienate 75 million people. We are at this point because of one party. If any Americans are going to feel alienated from the system, that party is responsible and it is just that their own followers bear the hurt and confusion.

    “For whatever a person sows he will also reap.”

      One side wants a fair shot with no games and no cheating. The other side cheated and so far is getting away with it, with stated intention to cement their mail-in voting scheme and pack the Supreme Court to cement their judicial ideology.

      Alienate the cheaters and piss them off. They know they cheated. Alienate the regular folks… and the country is toast.

    randian in reply to jhkrischel. | December 9, 2020 at 8:27 pm

    The only way you can believe lawfare determined the election is by also believing that the election fraud that spurred it isn’t real.

    Dathurtz in reply to jhkrischel. | December 9, 2020 at 9:17 pm

    The ones who would lose respect for the rule of law already operate with a total disrespect of the law. That is, unless they get a favorable ruling. Then it is settled and unquestionable law.

    Close The Fed in reply to jhkrischel. | December 9, 2020 at 10:11 pm

    Big assumption: that an equal number voted for Biden, or, would want to vote for Biden today, finding out finally that his son has, cough, cough, issues.

      Saw a survey on that which showed Biden would have lost 8% of his vote had the revelations about Hunter not been suppressed. That means the Dems would have had to manufacture another 5-6 million votes in the dead of night.

      We’ve “joked”, so to speak, in the past about a GOP candidate having to beat the margin of fraud. Henceforth, the GOP candidate is going to have to beat the margin of manufacturable fraud.

    mailman in reply to jhkrischel. | December 10, 2020 at 6:49 am

    I think this needs to be looked at in a slightly different way.

    Because the fraud was so rampant and obvious the reality is that 150+ million LEGAL voters have been disenfranchised by Democrats.

    To protect the integrity and sanctity of voting SCOTUS absolutely has to step in and stop the steal. That then protects every single LEGAL voter in America regardless of whether they voted D, R or I.

      Mailman, you have it perfectly. You are not the first to have recognized the proper issue before the court but you stated it well. Hopefully the Court will understand this. I have a feeling Justice Barrett will.

      Ronbert in reply to mailman. | December 10, 2020 at 9:51 am

      Are we to believe most of the legal voters voted in this election?
      (2018 =153 million registered voters)
      Asking for a friend.?

    kennycan in reply to jhkrischel. | December 10, 2020 at 9:22 am

    Your calculus has one flaw.
    Biden’s vote count is riddled with Fake People Voting and Flipped Votes. It is more like 80 Million Trump voters will be angered vs 60 million Not Trump voters being angered and the other 15-20 Million don’t exist.

    peakcat76 in reply to jhkrischel. | December 10, 2020 at 2:05 pm

    It won’t be 75 million democrats – recent polls indicate that 35% of democrats believe the election fraud happened and at least some of them will be intellectually honest

    “We are going to be left with a situation where more than 75 million people, one way or another, are going to lose faith in the system.”

    The voters of the Democrat Party have ALREADY lost faith in the System, with all their “Ban George Washington!”, “Get Rid of the Electoral System!”, and “Defund the Police” nonsense. This time, they’ve publicly embraced Marxism, as well.

    Not sure how much more disaffected they can get, honestly.

    Ironclaw in reply to jhkrischel. | December 10, 2020 at 3:37 pm

    Democrats already disparage the law, there is no change there. Regardless of outcome they will always try to change the laws to fit their immediate goals.

Even the CSA revered George Washington. I think we’re going to come to regret going after the founding fathers. When you don’t even have the most basic of founding myths to unite you in times like these, what’s left?

    Jounulz in reply to angron8788. | December 9, 2020 at 7:28 pm

    Robert E. Lee was actually related to Washington on top of that. I fear this second civil war won’t have the general veneer of “honor” and “dignity” that many leaders tried to put forth (not all, but plenty).

      thad_the_man in reply to Jounulz. | December 9, 2020 at 8:55 pm

      Not really. Lee’s wife was a descendant of Martha Washington from a different marriage. He was also a great-great-?-nephew of Richard Henry Lee, who proposed independence to Congress.

    txvet2 in reply to angron8788. | December 9, 2020 at 7:29 pm

    Not much, if you consider the history of the country as mythology.

    kennycan in reply to angron8788. | December 10, 2020 at 9:27 am

    The fact is we are NOT United.
    Communists and America can never live together. There is no overlap in shared values. Everything we value they don’t and vice versa.

    The Dems have embraced 100% full Anti-Americanism and the RINOs are really part of a Uniparty with Dem and GOPe factions that work complicitly.

So the Supremes will decide whether we remain The United States of America or we become Bidenzuela.

Chief Justice John (the Punter) Roberts will huff and puff and deliberate. He will decide that our rules of Federal Civil Procedure do not give these States standing. The question is, what will the five real Justices do?

    sequester in reply to objection. | December 9, 2020 at 7:28 pm

    Roberts owes his job to a real Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist had the courage to decide Bush v Gore on the merits. If Rehnquist had the courage of Roberts; Gore would have been President and Roberts would never have slithered his way onto SCOTUS.

    Roberts, being the consummate politician, will make the decision 6-3 in favor of Texas. Being on the losing side of a 5-4 vote will not appeal to him. Also, by being in the majority he will get to assign the writing of the opinion of the Court, which he will assign to himself, and it will be as mushy and full of “on the one-hand, and on the other hand” as you might expect. But the biggest reason for him to join the “right” side in this is that he will NOT want Amy Barrett to be the deciding vote in a 5-4 ruling. He knows this would be the trigger for nut-jobs like Sheldon Whitehouse to renew his unhinged attacks on Barrett and the Court. Barrett personally would be a huge target. Roberts doesn’t want that and he will need Barrett’s help in the future. They will be together on the Court a long time. So he will do her a favor and make himself the target. Barrett will owe him a BIG one.

    6-3 for Texas

      lichau in reply to Carl. | December 10, 2020 at 11:52 am

      I hope so. But…
      The Roberts SCOTUS wants to be liked. Invitations to the best cocktail parties. Roberts himself is Exhibit A.

      I think this is just too heavy a lift for the Roberts Court. I look for a single sentence dismissal. That will outrage the Deplorables, but Roberts doesn’t drink and golf with any of them.

even a cursory examination of the 2020 census reveals that apprx 99,397,300 souls occupy texas and the other sixteen states onboard (does not count AZ)–call it 100,000,000 people–that’s a larger population than the UK for comparison(by a long way)–that’s a lot of americans, folks–if scotus dismisses the people’s concerns out-of-hand, flippantly, with disdain and, crucially, with not even a fair hearing–then they at once have rendered themselves irrelevant–we the people, in reality, have no civil recourse against tyranny

SCOTUS doesn’t care. They’re not going to bother issuing an actual ruling on this, either.

Pennsylvania was the most slam-dunk case imaginable, and they didn’t even bother to issue an actual opinion on refusing to rule on it.

Why? Because legally it is UTTERLY INDEFENSIBLE, and they fucking know it.

The RINOs are content to let the Democrats blatantly cheat the most pathetic candidate in decades to the Presidency to get rid of Trump.

    ss396 in reply to Olinser. | December 10, 2020 at 10:44 am

    That PA case went 9-0. Even Justice Thomas went along with it. That smells like something else is in play here. Sometimes the SC declines a case because there’s a better one on its way to them. I’m thinking that Texas didn’t just spring this on them out of the clear blue.

      Carl in reply to ss396. | December 10, 2020 at 12:22 pm

      Theoretically it could have been 9-0 but not necessarily. It takes an affirmative vote of 4 Justices to accept a case. Could have been 6-3. Could also have been 6 voting “Present” and 3 in favor . There are plenty of reasons for them to deny an application action for review other than the Marits.

The more states to my non legal understanding mind might mean the SC can’t just blow this off.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Skip. | December 9, 2020 at 9:08 pm

    That is why I was hoping that other states would pile on, this makes it very clear that we are not going to stand for allowing election fraud and racketeering on a national level.

    I would rather see election fraud fixed, even if it is necessary to pacify some percentage of those behind it, than see those fraudsters carry on in Obama style and maybe even finish off America.

      No may be finish off this country. Do you actually think if they get away with it this time they will be honest next time. If they get away with it its not going to be pretty

The defending states offer a Catch-22. Nobody else can tell them how to run their “elections”, but otherwise there is NO check at all to make them run honest elections. If the defendant states win this, (and this non-lawyer doesn’t think there’s a chance they won’t), it won’t matter what the other states do, those four (actually, around six or seven) states can simply produce whatever numbers are required to “win”, no matter how obviously fraudulent – just like they’ve done here. This has to also affect how other states act in subsequent elections. Without at least the possibility of recourse any state with a current Democrat governor/administration could, and will, control elections down to the local level.

    fscarn in reply to txvet2. | December 9, 2020 at 8:04 pm

    I understand your point. Still, the states don’t have the full independence as they might argue. They became part of a whole when they ceded some of their sovereignty simultaneously with their ratification of the Constitution.

    To this end, lets read Article VI, Section 4. “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.”

    Now that can be read in at least two ways. Firstly, that fedgov itself promises the states that it will police itself so that it always operates in a republican manner. It can also be interpreted that fedgov promises that it will police the created system itself, including each of its parts, so that the whole thing is operated in a republican manner.

    Stated otherwise, each state owes to the other states a fiduciary duty to act in a republican/constitutional manner.

    alaskabob in reply to txvet2. | December 9, 2020 at 8:11 pm

    Good point. This allows the populous states to circumvent the Electoral College and function as popular vote only.

    sequester in reply to txvet2. | December 10, 2020 at 11:42 am

    SCOTUS does have a Constitutional cudgel. Article IV provides

    “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…”

    However there really is no caselaw or precedent for applying this clause.

      henrybowman in reply to sequester. | December 10, 2020 at 3:27 pm

      Isn’t this precisely the clause used by the federal government to justify all its federal rules about state redistricting and gerrymandering?

One way SCOTUS could act without fashioning the result would be to say:

‘Ok you convinced us that all the procedural, process changes to the legislatively enacted are unconstitutional amd ordered voided. Therefore respondent States must:
1. Seek to determine if the ballots cast under the normal legislative regime; in person ballots and traditional absentee ballots, which otherwise comply with preexisting elections laws:
A. Are separately maintained and recorded
B. If co mingled with unlawful ballots can they be separated

Where lawful ballots were cast, separately maintained or are able to be separated from unlawful ballots those lawfully cast ballots shall be tabulated to determine the winner of each election.

2. Where unlawfully cast ballots are unable to be separated from lawfully cast ballots in a precinct that precinct shall not have its ballots tabulated to determine the result of any election.

3. Where no precinct within a state has the ability to separate lawfully cast ballots from unlawful ballots the entire lot of ballots for the election shall be voided.

4. In the event that no lawful ballots are able to determine the winner of the Presidential election, the State Legislature shall convene to determine the selection of presidential electors.

5. If a state legislature is unable to determine a slate of electors that state shall not have electors.

This option allows SCOTUS to take action while punting the issue back where it belongs: in the individual states.

If a state is so jacked up that they don’t have any way to differentiate lawful ballots from unlawful ballots because they purposely mixed them, then the legislature (as representative of the citizens) must act.

If a state or individual precinct, through foresight segregated lawful ballots from unlawful ballots then they are not harmed: the lawful ballots will be counted.

This seems to me the best option because it has SCOTUS acting as a referee and not directly deciding the outcome. The action moves back to the State and local precinct level.

If your local precinct is run by corrupted officials who acted outside the legislatively enacted elections laws and as a result your ballot is tossed then you can hammer these officials in the next local election.

If it was statewide and the legislature appoints a slate of electors you don’t want, likewise you can express your displeasure at the next state legislative election.

Meanwhile Constitutional norms are maintained and the clear message from SCOTUS is don’t eff about with illegal proclamations by non legislative actors, SoS, local elections officials unless you want to risk your whole illegal election regime being upended.

    We’ve here because the states failed to act either by legislature or court. So I hope the SC will take action different than send back to the states for a repeat of the last month.

      CommoChief in reply to r2468. | December 10, 2020 at 10:14 am


      It wouldn’t be a repetition. SCOTUS would have voided the tabulation and directed that only lawfully cast ballots be counted.

      If the state and local elections officials have mixed the ballots in such a way that the lawfully cast ballots can’t be retrieved for tabulation then all the ballots ate tossed.

      In that case the state legislature would choose a slate of electors, it the legislature cannot or will not do so then that state sends no electors.

      FYI the r control the legislature in PA 20, MI 16, GA 16 and WI 10. Totalled that is 62 EC votes. Add those to Trump current total of 232 and he wins. Add a certain combo of those and Trump wins.

      Only if the legislature in all those states do nothing and refuse to send electors would Biden win.

      Please keep in mind that the legislative option is the second step. If the state has lawfully cast ballots which would meet the criteria for tabulation pre Rona illegal changes then they count the lawful ballots only to determine the winner.

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | December 10, 2020 at 3:30 pm

    What keeps them from just continuing the blatant cheating? “OK, we separated all the lawful ballots from the unlawful ones. 90% of the lawful ones say Biden, 90% of the unlawful ones say Trump.”

      CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | December 10, 2020 at 4:48 pm


      ‘what keeps them from …?’

      1. Specific directives what constitutes lawful v unlawful ballots
      2. A special master for each state authorized to make rulings with immediate review
      3. US Marshall present in every precinct

      That would be my recommendation.

        In other places I have suggested US Marshall presence when votes are being counted. Not so easy to kick one out compared to Granny.

18 / 50 = 36% of the states

Alaska Supreme Court ruled just like these four states on stripping the signature from the mail in ballot. Depending on this ruling, Alaska races change also.

that sounds reasonable, chief–thank you–there are the valid concerns of too many people involved, the stakes are too high, the alternatives too dire–scotus must act fairly

Why is it not possible to perform another election as a remedy?

Hoping God gets back from vacation soon.

We (including Pres Trump) warned the democrats about mail in voting. I am not against new voting methods but they need to be agreed upon and planned well in advance and tested. This was forced upon the nation. They should bear the brunt of the scorn and legal ramifications of this.

A.G. Barr has no part here does he?
I am not sure.

It also puts squarely on the table before SCOTUS whether banana repubicanism suffices under the Guarantee Clause.

It seems to me the only real person(s) that has standing is a legislator from one of the states being sued. After all, if the legislature’s role has been usurped isn’t a legislator the only party really harmed. Doesn’t this suit require at least one legislator from each of the states to join the case? Even if that legislator’s leadership is feckless and does not join the individual’s duty/right is infringed by not voting on each of the changes.

At things point I’m thinking there is likely to be about more than the legal case. This is the beginnings of a coalition of States that will stand opposed to the stuff a Biden administration will likely attempt to impose, much the way CA and NY ran a lot of lawfare against the Trump administration.

Honestly, this is a good thing, as it will give focus and a constructive outlet to the opposition to Biden’s coup. I won’t say they have defused the bomb, but they’ve certainly reduced the likelihood of someone doing something irreversible.

A War occurs when an attempt is made to settle a controversy by use of violence. So far we have a controversy. It can be settled by the court insisting on a fair investigation of the issue and a judgment that respects the rights of the citizenry and the dictates of our constitution.
One side has invoked the power of the press and of electronic media to suppress any investigation of the election, and has supported violent insurrection by the likes of antifa.
Only a decision that supports investigation can possibly be appropriate. The fact that one side opposes that indicates strongly that that size recognizes it is in the wrong.

The hell with the electoral collage.
Each state gets 1 vote.

I keep hearing that the SCOTUS is not wanting to get involved in this because to do so and ruling in favor of Trump would cause the Left to go off the charts violent. There would be blood in the streets, rioting, terrorism, and so much more should the Left be forced to address the election fairly.

I say go for it. I do not want to live in a country where one side holds the other hostage with threats of violence or whatever. I say the courts should demand fairness and then let law enforcement do their jobs to keep the peace. This is clearly a case where we must stand up for our liberties and way of government and cannot allow threats to force us to back down.

    Elzorro in reply to Cleetus. | December 10, 2020 at 9:34 am

    Maybe the free states could form some sort of a confederation to fight this aggression.

    lichau in reply to Cleetus. | December 10, 2020 at 12:00 pm

    I think you nailed it. The Left will burn down the cities if the SCOTUS rules as they should. The Right (so far) leaves their demonstration sites cleaner than they found them.

    If you are one of those black robed politicians, you know voting for Texas will have you (and your family) an assassination target for the rest of your life.

    Courage is a rare commodity, essentially unheard of in politicians. Even if they do wear black robes.

      henrybowman in reply to lichau. | December 10, 2020 at 3:36 pm

      The difference is, the people who police their own trash after their demonstrations are deliberate and methodical. When it comes time for them to mark you, it will not be from a tricked-out mini-Glock held sideways over the head.

    lichau in reply to Cleetus. | December 10, 2020 at 12:03 pm

    I think the most likely outcome is that they simply don’t hear the case. There is no way to force them to hear it.

    Second most likely? 5-4 against Texas. With all sorts of lawyerly weasel words in multiple opinions.

      henrybowman in reply to lichau. | December 10, 2020 at 3:38 pm

      They are the court of first (and only) impression for this lawsuit. The constitution requires them to hear it. Now, they can ignore the constitution, and thereby destroy their own authority. That just makes the fan turn faster, and doesn’t take the targets off their backs.

The Friendly Grizzly | December 10, 2020 at 8:21 am

I wish my adopted home state – Tennessee – would join in.

Postconstitutional America Sucks

agree, cleetus–also, without over-thinking/analyzying this, it boils down to one thing only:

any reasonable person, after examining the available evidence, can come to one conclusion only–the dems/progs manipulated the rules/practices/procedures to affect the outcome of the presidential election–in several instances, in clear and blatantant violation of the respective state/federal constitutions–they cheated–period

it matters not to what extent–like being pregnant, it’s an are or are not situation–simple–to dismiss clear and legitimate concerns out-of-hand or through some legal legerdemain regarding ” standing ” etc. or some other technicality is not in keeping with scotus’ fundamental purpose and to do so is an act of extreme cowardice not to mention tacit(perhaps) complicity–they are the court of last resort and they each took an oath–they need to fulfill it

if they deny even a fair hearing, then scotus will have shut the door on our last vector for CIVIL redress of our concerns

they MUST do their duty

The Coalition should also agree to withhold sending of federal taxes until the matter gets a fair hearing. No taxation without representation and all that.

It would be great if all the non-commie states joined Texas — and let the rest of them go to hell.

A Constitutional solution is to assemble as in the 1st amendment on your state. With; people that will do the work; people that will form a Lawful grand jury and bring a true bill against these evil doers. On Oregon we bring Article I Section 1. We need; people to populate a VII amendment jury of peers to bring forth a verdict that has no appeal in law in Our Article III one supreme Court claiming original jurisdiction. There may be other solutions!! However, this one works; it is we the people in assembly, forming a civilian court of record, implementing Ex Parte Milligan which nullified Lieber Code/martial law.. DOJ, FBI, USMS, USMC, STATE OF OREGON all acquiesced and defaulted. Will you help your state assemble? You have a pulpit. It only takes 45. Americans on a state in a minimum of 42 days.. Invite all non evil Americans. It only takes 45 people, no persons.. all the best of every good fortune for the good, [email protected]

Based on the foregoing commentary, it is absolutely w/o question, if brain dead and camel-toe get the jobs, there first move will be to disarm the citizenry. “Red Flag” warrant service at oh dark thirty, via paid snitches. So any of you all with any instruments had best devise a means by which folks who thought you had what you had, now know you never had what they thought you had. And doing that while maintaining “easy, immediate access” will be quite the challenge. Do you think I jest? FWIW, I’m a 70’s peacenik who ardently believes that hugging the town square tree whilst chanting “OOOHHHHHHMMMMM” will end all strife 😀 😀

A change that need to be made for future election is to require a fingerprint attached to each ballot so we can ID the person who casts each ballot. When people register to vote they must submit a fingerprint. This would allow auditing of elections and verification that only legal voters vote.