Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

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

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

106 U.S. House Republicans support Texas

The 3 p.m. deadline for responses to Texas’ Supreme Court lawsuit has passed, and the court docket page still seems to be updating as of this writing.

As predicted yesterday, the nation is split. I summarized the support for Texas in Legal Civil War – 17 States Join Texas Lawsuit In Supreme Court Against PA, GA, MI, and WI.

Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin have opposed Texas, as have at total of 20 other states, D.C, and two territories in a Brief file by D.C.

The District of Columbia together with the States and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington ….

Ohio takes no side, but wants the Court to decide the substantive issue of whether quickly “whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted.” Arizona’s Brief isn’t in the docket yet, but its Motion suggests it’s not taking a side but wants a quick court decision.

MORE TO FOLLOW

106 Republican members of the House filed a Brief in support of Texas. [Update – 126?]

UPDATES

[7 p.m.]

I finally have had a chance to go through some of the opposition briefs. I focus on Pennsylvania’s, as the arguments are pretty typical.

The Preliminary Statement accuses Texas and Trump supporters of seditious conduct:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.

The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings  ttempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.

In the substance of the Brief, first there are the procedural arguments:

PA argues that SCOTUS should not exercise its discretion to accept “original jurisdiction” because core interests of Texas are not at issue, unlike a border or waterway dispute. Rather, the argument goes, Texas is seeking to protect the asserted rights of its citizens, and if SCOTUS expands its jurisdiction in that way, it will open the floodgates to making the rare exercise of SCOTUS original jurisdiction into a trial court for disputes between citizens of states, rather than states themselves.

Next, PA argues that Texas has no standing, because it has suffered no injury in fact; the way in which other states interpret their own laws and own constitutions is not a protected Texas interest. The personal interests of Texas citizens cannot be sued upon by the State of Texas.

Next, the case is moot because the certifications are completed, and the votes have been cast. The Court cannot unring the voting bell, so to speak:

The Court recently recognized the primacy of voters’ reliance interests in Andino v. Middleton, 20A55 (Oct. 5, 2020). There, a South Carolina District Court order (entered on September 18, 2020), enjoined that state’s witness requirement for absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 5, this Court stayed the District Court’s decision, thus reinstating the witness requirement. Recognizing that South Carolina voters submitted ballots without witnesses in the timeframe between the District Court’s September 18 injunction and this Court’s October 5 stay, however, this Court specified that “any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement.” Andino v. Middleton, 2020 WL 5887393 *1 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020).

This Court thus acknowledged that voters should not be punished for relying upon the rules in place when they voted. Similar reliance interests here compel this Court to maintain the status quo for Pennsylvania voters at this late juncture. Overturning Pennsylvania’s election results is contrary to any metric of fairness and would do nothing less than deny the fundamental right to vote to millions of Pennsylvania’s citizens.

On substance, PA argues that Texas does not allege a constitutional violation, and the Electors Clause is being improperly invoked for this purpose. The Brief runs through the allegations of election law violations, and argues they have no merit.

The Brief then argues that the standards for injunctive relief are not met:

In its motion Texas asks this Court to issue an injunction, or, alternatively, issue a stay, that would bar Pennsylvania (and three other states) from certifying its election results and from participating in the Electoral College. Motion at 1-2. In making that request, Texas muddles the distinction between a stay and an injunction, as the only conceivable action this Court could take would be to issue an injunction. Texas then proceeds to cite the incorrect standard, ignoring the heightened threshold for issuance of an injunction in an original jurisdiction suit between two states. Texas fails to meet that exceedingly high threshold….

Whatever the standard, Texas cannot meet it. Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four sister States run their elections, and Texas suffered no harm because it dislikes the results in those elections. Further, Texas’s claims are also moot and barred by laches. The predicate for Texas to take action was established well before Election Day, but it waited until now—after all four States have certified their elections—to bring this action. While Texas waited to see the results, millions of voters relied on the settled rules. Those voters should not be punished for not choosing Texas’s preferred candidate, and Texas should not be rewarded for its unreasonable delay in bringing this action….

At bottom, Texas seeks to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to achieve the extraordinary relief of disenfranchising all Pennsylvanians who voted and one-tenth of the voters in the entire Nation. Such relief would, of course, be “drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate.” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., 2020 WL 7012522, at *7. In support of such a request, Texas brings to the Court only discredited allegations and conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. And Texas asks this Court to contort its original jurisdiction jurisprudence in an election where millions of people cast ballots under truly extraordinary circumstances, sometimes risking their very health and safety to do so. Accepting Texas’s view would do violence to the Constitution and the Framers’ vision, and would plunge this Court into “one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.” Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2507 (2019).

[Friday, 11 a.m.]

Texas has filed its Reply Brief.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions  in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.

First, as a legal matter, neither Texas nor its citizens have an action in any other court for the relief that Texas seeks here. Moreover, no other court could provide relief as a practical matter. The suggestion that Texas—or anyone else—has an adequate remedy is specious.

Second, Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2; 3 U.S.C. § 2. Inaction would disenfranchise as many voters as taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting decisively will not only put lower courts but also state and local officials on notice that future elections must conform to State election statutes, requiring legislative ratification of any change prior to the election. Far from condemning this and other courts to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the flood of election-season litigation.

Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses  willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whatever reason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

To oppose this is yo oppose the constitution. Yes?

Why, it has even turned the electoral vote map upside down!

Why is Georgia opposing this?!?!

    It’s the lefty states that oppose applying the Constitution as it’s written. Asked to be blunt, they’d say that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. By that they mean that they do NOT want fedgov to be limited in any way; that speech should be restricted; that the people should not have guns but that the government should have guns to control/contain the people.

    In short, lefties want to “reset” us from being citizens to be respected to being subjects to be ruled by them.

    I hope more and more see the dangers of calling for an Article V con-con. If the lefties get their hands on the Constitution, the pile of goo that will be presented to us will bear the marks of the Soviet constitutions or the European Union.

    Why is “Georgia” opposing this?

    Swamp.

    Better to ask: Why is most of our elected officials treasonously loyal to Communist China? Answer: money.

Changing election law without legislative approval disenfranchises you no matter what state you in.

    In a nation where its Constitution is the Law of the Land this is true.

    We are no longer such a nation.

    Perhaps SCOTUS will tonight or early tomorrow morning order the defendants to file their opposition on the merits with a very short time fuse.

    That’s what I was thinking, just slightly different. PA’s very lame defense/rebuttal states that TX voters were not harmed. Well yes they were, TX went for Trump, there any massive cheating and lawbreaking by any other state(s) that went for Biden, illegally, harmed each state that went for Trump

24 states are opposed to Texas and Co. Plus DC and the territories Dems would like to make states.

Coincidentally — Not — if the election goes to the House the number of states likely voting for Biden is….24.

The Dems/Marxists stick together, are ruthless, and are partisan to the end. Which is one of the many reasons why they routinely defeat the disorganized, feckless, cowardly, and traiterous GOP.

JusticeDelivered | December 10, 2020 at 4:19 pm

“The District of Columbia together with the States and territories of California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Washington ….”

I have been planning on leaving Michigan for some time, this list is a guide of places to avoid. Any place which supports election racketeering, or even does not take a stand against such, clearly lacks merit.

    In this election it seems appropriate to distinguish between the citizens of a state and the state’s government. Putting aside the fact that the citizens voted for their government before, in this election the governments of the four state defendants, and others states as well, acted against the wishes of the states’ citizens.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Rick. | December 10, 2020 at 5:41 pm

      I understand, in that I am in Michigan, near Flint, a shithole of a city just like Detroit and Saginaw.

      Flint have been shaking down residents of first Genesee County, and later all Michigan state residents in the sixties, a problem which has steadily become worse since that time.

      My background started as multidisciplinary engineering, which included mechanical, electrical, plant engineering and water treatment.

      I am not going to go into details here.

      Flint mismanaged their water treatment plant and infrastructure, their problems were completely their fault. Yet, they managed to blame consequences of their mismanagement on the state by screaming racism. Purely bush league Mlive, via the local rag commonly known as the Flint Urinal, very much promoted Flint’s fraud, just like we are seeing today with the election.

      henrybowman in reply to Rick. | December 10, 2020 at 7:56 pm

      “Putting aside the fact that the citizens voted for their government before”

      …as far as anybody knows…

        That is correct. I should have included a caveat to the effect that those earlier elections themselves may have fraudulently elected their “leaders.”

It is the right of each state to violate its own laws as they see fit. Evidence is no longer evidence. Election integrity and chain of custody no longer apply. Defending voter fraud is the necessity of these states.

Geographically the Civil War was a war between two definable regions, but this is a “war” amongst the States. It’s not defending laws, the integrity of the vote and mechanism of voting, just the desired outcome… which is a social justice construct. The Right wants a free and fair election… the Left wants an specific outcome.

The Left has played its hand to gain control of the country to change it … permanently… by any means necessary. This is the Big Gambit.

SCOTUS will be changed. The packing rotation will be coordinated to have specific cases directed to selected justice groupings. The last vestige of a separate independent judiciary will be gone. I hope the present justices understand this.

“The Right wants a free and fair election… the Left wants an specific outcome.”
Your point is analogous to equal opportunity versus equal outcome (equity, it is called). The opponents line up the same.

The PA House Speaker and Senate Majority leader have filed an Amicus in support of Texas.

    Rick in reply to JHogan. | December 10, 2020 at 8:07 pm

    This could be big. I have not been able to find their brief. It would interesting if it were supported by affidavits saying that the Pa. legislature never authorized the multiple changes implemented in this election.

      Rick in reply to Rick. | December 10, 2020 at 8:16 pm

      We do know that the Pa. legislature passed the unconstitutional (per Pa.’s constitution) legislation
      that led to the laches defense used by the Pa. Supreme Court and not taken up by SCOTUS.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 10, 2020 at 4:42 pm

BREAKING!

President Trump Tweets – “People Are Upset, and They Have a Right To Be… A Coup Is Taking Place In Front of Our Eyes.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/president-trump-announces-another-peace-deal-middle-east-israel-morocco-agree-full-diplomatic-relations/

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | December 10, 2020 at 4:51 pm

    Darn, that educational system that taught reading from top to the bottom of the page…..

    We have a choice… rally around the Flag of the USA or that of foreign powers… notably that of Red China and the EU.

    Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters spineless. I think she is confusing the GOPe with the Deplorables.

    The Left… now caught… has no where to go but all in and hoping that the spineless join the Left. The equation is changing because of this… from “free and fair elections” to “freedom and liberty”.

Campaigning is too time consuming and too expensive. Having the people vote introduces fraud. We should revert to what was … let the state legislatures pick the president.

    NavyMustang in reply to walls. | December 10, 2020 at 4:57 pm

    That’s never been the case. Senators were chosen by the legislatures in the past, but not the president.

      Politically speaking, 1913 was the worst year in the nation’s history. What happened then continues to plague us.

      Four disastrous events,

      February 3, 1913 – the 16th Am (income tax) became part of the Constitution

      March 3, 1913 – Democrat Wilson became president; Wilson the internationalist made the hard break from Americanism (government’s sole role being to protect natural rights), and set America on the pattern of endless world wars with America as the world’s policeman

      April 8, 1913 – the 17th Am (direct election of federal senators) became part of the Constitution

      December 23, 1913 – the bill creating the Federal Reserve became law; signed by Wilson the internationalist

      Elzorro in reply to NavyMustang. | December 11, 2020 at 9:35 am

      No the president was chosen by the legislature appointing electors w/o and election in the 1800’s and they still choose them do but choose to do so by popular election. They can do it however they wish.

    Elzorro in reply to walls. | December 11, 2020 at 9:29 am

    I agree. The presidential elections are corrupt. Let the legislature pick the electors in another manner. This would empower your local representative and give people local control.

The Friendly Grizzly | December 10, 2020 at 4:46 pm

The list of opposition states and territories shows no surprises.

To be clear, Guam and the District of Columbia are not states.

I’m embarrassed that NC joined these traitors, but we have a Soros Attorney General and Governor. I wouldn’t be surprised if those two got re-elected by fraud.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 10, 2020 at 5:05 pm

Lin Wood
@

Brad Raffensperger @GaSecofState
was scheduled to appear & testify tomorrow before GA House Committee about 11/3 election fraud.

He just backed out & cannot be subpoenaed unless special session is called. @BrianKempGA
refuses to do so.

How convenient.

DEMAND ANSWERS Patriots.

Does anyone else think this lawsuit is making us look bad? We all know it won’t work but how exactly will it come across to the moderates of a state like MI (under 2%) or WI (under 1%) or PA (also under 1%)?

    Rick in reply to Danny. | December 10, 2020 at 5:22 pm

    Likely many moderates voted for Trump in each of those states, and they likely like the fact that Trump and the petitioning states are not rolling over and playing dead.

    JHogan in reply to Danny. | December 10, 2020 at 5:27 pm

    You must be joking. You’re actually using the “what will the moderates think” gambit at this point?

    What do you think the ‘moderates’ think about the Dems bypassing their state’s Constitution and Legislative branch to stack their state’s election in favor of Biden?

    What do you think the ‘moderates’ think about Dems rigging/stealing the election?

    What do you think the ‘moderates’ think about the Dems/media smothering and suppressing the now ‘breaking’ story about Hunter Biden and Co’s financial shennanigans with China in the weeks before election day? And about China Joe’s possible involvement?

    Paul in reply to Danny. | December 10, 2020 at 5:28 pm

    Making “us” look bad because we call bullshit when four states clearly and brazenly violate the Constitution and cheat their asses off, thus stealing the election and allowing a cabal of Marxists who have promised to destroy the Republic by packing SCOTUS and the Senate to take power?

    You think that makes “us” look bad? If so, “we” ain’t an “us.”

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Paul. | December 10, 2020 at 5:50 pm

      They are seriously low IQ zombies bought by the Communists and Soros.

      They are so stupid they think they are going to get alway with this.

      Surprise Morons! You have signed your own death certificates.

    amwick in reply to Danny. | December 10, 2020 at 5:35 pm

    I think the f’ed up election made this country a laughingstock.

    Who let the troll out? MI & WI can both eat sh1t and die and America would be no worse for it.

    henrybowman in reply to Danny. | December 10, 2020 at 7:59 pm

    Warning! Concern troll is concerned!

    randian in reply to Danny. | December 10, 2020 at 11:28 pm

    Worrying about “looking bad” is exactly why the Republicans are so often ineffective and spineless. You should never worry about what your enemies will say about you.

Looks like some lefty idiot is stuck on the “down vote” button. Go play in traffic, kid.

    amwick in reply to UJ. | December 10, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    I was wondering who the down fairy was myself.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to amwick. | December 10, 2020 at 5:51 pm

      Obama, Hillary Kamala?

      We know they’re fairies, and we know they are down so…..

    JusticeDelivered in reply to UJ. | December 10, 2020 at 11:54 pm

    That drive by down voting Troll is likely Rags, who suffers with both TDS and LPS (Little Person Syndrome), as in incredibly small minded.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 10, 2020 at 6:20 pm

Evidently “No Biden is a good Biden”…..

Joe Biden’s Brother James Also Caught Up In Federal Probe Now…

https://www.weaselzippers.us/460597-joe-bidens-brother-james-also-caught-up-in-federal-probe-now/

It is amazing that the Dems have been crying for years to eliminate the states in Presidential elections and go with a straight popular vote. Now, all of a sudden after gaming the system through fraud, they are all for independent state elections.

The Legislatures of both Georgia and Pennsyvania have joined the lawsuit as in each case their Govonor’s violated their Authority.

    CorkyAgain in reply to snowshooze. | December 10, 2020 at 10:53 pm

    What action, if any, did they take before the election?

      Vancomycin in reply to CorkyAgain. | December 11, 2020 at 11:24 am

      Well, seeing as the laws were already in place about some of this, and judges have taken to saying, “you can’t sue until harm has occurred, and no harm has occurred, since the election hasn’t taken place.”

      Then, they did what they were supposed to, which was assume the laws in place would be followed, or if not followed, then upheld.

      Foolish, I know.

I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it the heart of Texas’s suit is that the defendant states’ changes to their election procedures were unconstitutional because they were made by the governors, secretaries of state, or other officials — rather than the state legislatures as required by the Constitution.

But insofar as the state legislatures didn’t and still haven’t stepped in to overrule those changes, couldn’t it be argued that they have given their tacit approval?

    randian in reply to CorkyAgain. | December 10, 2020 at 11:27 pm

    If we had a sane judiciary that argument would be dispensed of easily: approving of something you have no authority to grant offers no shield. A murderer can’t argue that he isn’t guilty and can’t be prosecuted because his local police department approved of it.

      CorkyAgain in reply to randian. | December 10, 2020 at 11:49 pm

      Sorry, maybe I don’t understand your point, but the state legislatures do have the authority to make those changes.

      Unlike the police in your example, who do not have the authority to approve or legalize murder.

      Is your point that the legislatures don’t have the authority to delegate that responsibility?

        stablesort in reply to CorkyAgain. | December 11, 2020 at 8:00 am

        It would be upsetting (to say the least) if the state legislature were to tell the state Democratic Party officials to run the election as they see fit. It is no less upsetting when the state legislature sets the election rules to suit the desires of the state Democratic Party.

        Election 2020 was of the second method. Did they have the power to do that? Considering that most of legislatures of the states at issue are Republican legislatures, we would have to say yes, they do have the power.

        Remove that power by removing those legislators; too bad we were wrong about our legislators when we last voted.

    “But insofar as the state legislatures didn’t and still haven’t stepped in to overrule those changes, couldn’t it be argued that they have given their tacit approval?”

    the legislature did not give tacit approval, they know if they challenged the board of elections or whatever passes for that in pa the pa supreme court would rule against them, if you remember the legislature did the congressional districts and the pa supreme court overruled them and came up with it’s own, giving the dems the bulk of the seats in congress. they had a ‘friendly law suit’ that allowed signatures not to be checked. we won’t even mention the bulk mailing of ballots to all register voters

So in their final moments, Republicans are going down circling their wagons to protect the Dems.

Let’s get ready to re-register as unaffiliated independents the moment Trump concedes (assuming he does). We need to make it very clear that without Trump, there is no GOP, a fundamental distinction that Limbaugh and Hannity seem genetically incapable of grasping. Even now, they are advocating we hold our noses to vote for the lesser of two evils, the very people circling the wagons. Limbaugh was besieged yesterday with callers calling for a new party and he handled it miserably.

The right thing to do for now is nothing. Let it play out. But if/when it happens, we need to wed Trump’s concession to the very moment the gutting of GOP registrations began. That places the power cleanly in Trump’s hands by allowing him to remain as the only Republican who can save the party.

Now if the Dems would do the same (there are lots of patriotic Dems who share the same dismay at the Bernie/AOC messaging), that would gut the Dem registrations as well and give the desperate RINOs a place to escape to leaving Trump as the last man standing. Trump would then have the option of re-assembling the GOP or starting fresh with a new party. His call.

Stop thinking like Republicans. We CAN do something about this. Together with like-minded Dems, let’s make unaffiliated independents the largest “party”! There is where the “consent of the governed” will live. No more confusion. Will they declare martial law (to enforce the Wuhan Flu lockdowns of course)? Let’s push it there and find out.

We’ll see.

Texans need to write their mid-wit, John Cornyn, and ask him to keep his pie hole shut if the can’t be bothered to support the president that endorsed him. This dope has a law degree or two, but tweeted and said on TV that he was simply baffled by the filing of the Texas AG.

He and the rest of Team R also unanimously supported S386 to allow more green card holders because big tech just can’t be bothered to find unemployed Americans.

    Voyager in reply to southtexas. | December 11, 2020 at 11:48 am

    Tangent, but the big reason they like H1B visa holders is they are effectively indentured servants for the duration of their visa. The visa is held by the company, not the individual, so they cannot go to another company, unless they are able to get their own green card.

    That process generally takes years, and thousands of dollars in legal fees.

    So basically, all that BS that makes a normal white collar engineer say “nope, not worth it” the H1B visa holder has to just go along with.

    White collar slavery is so much easier than having to respond to engineer’s concerns. And, you can chuck them under the bus any time management’s decisions go boom, too.

I like it! That Preliminary Statement basically says “We had no authority do change the rules but we did anyway. We got called out for it, and said “oopsies”. But people who voted under our illegal rules shouldn’t be penalized for it.”

Or to rephrase “We want to keep the profits from our illegal enterprise.”

Predictably, the argument is being framed as the Court being asked to disenfranchise millions of voters. We all know that SCOTUS isn’t being asked to decide the election or to disenfranchise wide swaths of the electorate in these states, but to uphold the Constitution and the law.

No one was denied the right to vote. The votes were cast, therefore no one was disenfranchised. That the votes were later invalidated as a direct result of the unlawful actions of the state executive and/or judicial branches, while regrettable, is not disenfranchisement, and any ‘blame’ for such invalidation does not belong to the Court.

The actions of the executive and judicial branches in the Defendant States violated the Constitution and therefore any votes cast under the unlawfully altered rules are invalid as a direct result of those actions. That is where any ‘blame’ lies.

“Predictably, the argument is being framed as the Court being asked to disenfranchise millions of voters”

My counter-argument to that specific argument, that might get at least some play, because it’s just as much an appeal to emotion as *their* argument is: “Ok, but if there was fraud, then the people who voted honestly, anywhere in the country for federal offices are being disenfranchised. The fraud negates *their* votes, whether they were for Trump or for Biden.”

    Idonttweet in reply to Vancomycin. | December 11, 2020 at 11:50 am

    My point was simply that the people were not ‘disenfranchised.’ By definition, ‘disenfranchise’ means ‘to deprive someone of the right to vote.‘ People were not deprived of the right to vote, therefore not ‘disenfranchised.’ Votes might be invalidated, but arguing that the Court is being asked to ‘disenfranchise’ voters are, at best, misleading and disingenuous.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend