Image 01 Image 03

Texas Sues PA, GA, MI, and WI In U.S. Supreme Court To Have Legislatures Appoint Electors

Texas Sues PA, GA, MI, and WI In U.S. Supreme Court To Have Legislatures Appoint Electors

“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed.”

So, I didn’t see this coming. The State of Texas has sued Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The filing, first reported by Joel Pollak at Breitbart, is under a procedure where the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in suits between states. That means the lawsuit does not need to be filed in District Court, then work its way through the normal appeals process.

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.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with this procedure to opine right now on whether it is proper procedurally, but if it works it puts the election squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court. There is no guarantee that if the issue were put to the legislators in these states that they would select Trump electors in the face of certified vote counts showing Biden the winner.

Here is the introduction:

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 Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.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

Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President—any President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.

Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.

Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should
extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.

Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations: * * *

The Bill of Complaint apparently was filed just before midnight last night. Today we are likely to get a Supreme Court ruling on the lawsuit over Pennsylvania’s vote certification and the claim that the no-excuse mail-in ballot procedure passed by the Pennsylvania legislature was unlawful.


Here is the formal Prayer  for Relief:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:

A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.

C. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College.

D. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.

E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.

F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court.

G. Award costs to Plaintiff State.

H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.


The docket reflects that responses are due by Thursday at 3 p.m.

Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.

I’ve seen some people assert that the fact that the case is docketed means the court has decided to “hear” the case. That is not true. A case was filed, so it gets docketed. The court set a deadline for response, just like it did in the Pennsylvania case, but that doesn’t signify the court will hear the merits. The Court will decide the emergency application, but it has not agreed to hear the merits of the case. While the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states, it is not mandatory jurisdiction, which is why there is a motion for leave to file the case. Maybe the Court will agree to hear the case (unlikely), but it has not done so yet.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Corrupt states with rogue courts and legislatures who allow cheating and stealing to sway national elections is disenfranchising voters everywhere. It’s a national problem, not a state problem. For SCOTUS to not step in to stop would be criminal. Maybe even treason. Crimes of omission are crimes nevertheless. This would be a perfect example.

    I don’t want to upset anyone but this is really going nowhere. Can’t recall if they have discretion not to review an original jurisdiction filing but even if they don’t, the matter will be dismissed on other grounds, standing seems likely.

      Concise in reply to Concise. | December 8, 2020 at 7:27 pm

      Having read some the pleadings, I have to admit that Texas has made some clever arguments. They could even provide a basis for relief in a receptive court. But, and I’d be happy to be proven wrong, I still believe that ultimately it won’t work

        dging in reply to Concise. | December 9, 2020 at 2:21 pm

        I agree that ultimately it won’t work. But if it doesn’t, it’s the end of our republic. A republic, if you can keep it. We couldn’t.

        If it fails, it means laws have no meaning we are a govt of men, not of law.

        The Texas suit is inarguably correct. The constitution gives the state legislature sole authority to set the rules for the elections. Not the courts, and not back-room deals. But it is inarguable, that some of the rules followed during the election were set by the courts and by side agreements outside the legislature (for example, allowing no-excuse mail-in ballots and accepting ballots after 8 pm election day in PA). If SCOTUS does not grant the relief TX seeks, then it says, the constitution has no meaning. It says Dems can set rules for the election that are not constitutionally valid that we must still abide by these unconstitutional rules.

        A govt of men, not of law.

      Connivin Caniff in reply to Concise. | December 9, 2020 at 4:55 pm

      Ridiculous case – no standing.

    daaron60 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | December 8, 2020 at 2:46 pm

    It strikes me that what Texas is arguing is that the SC needs to decide if states have the authority to “dumb down” the definition of a legal vote and the process used to determine if a vote is legal. That seems fair.

      daaron60, exactly my thinking too. So NY and CA allow illegals to vote, no id, no questions asked, and allow ballot harvesting… how are they not juicing the EC for Democrats every cycle? At some point SCOTUS is going to HAVE to address the real issue of a handful of states, so relaxing their voting rules to invite banana-republic vote tallies that overwhelm the whole country. This suit may well give SCOTUS, if they’re willing, the opening to address this issue head on.

        Milhouse in reply to RobM. | December 8, 2020 at 4:03 pm

        Because those are their electors, and how they are chosen does not affect other states at all. If the NY and CA legislatures liked they could drop the pretense of having presidential elections at all, and simply authorize the DNC to name the states’ electors. Or they could go to the other extreme and be so democratic as to allow anyone in the world to vote, as many times as they like. No other state would have any grounds to sue, or any standing to sue. “You pick your electors your way, and we will pick them our way.”

        (Congressional elections are different, Congress can and has set rules for those.)

          felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 4:44 pm

          Yes, that was what the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States was all about: enabling foreigners to determine the political course of the USA.

          Milhouse, what a great insight into your psyche, if not into the fundamentals of the American experiment.

          daaron60 in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 6:04 pm

          Looks like I was right and you were not. Case is officially on the docket. Does not mean Texas will win. It just means that it is fair for the SC to consider the arguments,

          ss396 in reply to Milhouse. | December 9, 2020 at 10:35 am

          Thing is, they haven’t: they have not opened elector nominations to the DNC; they did not open their vote to everyone in the world – nor could they regarding the Presidential ballot. The States’ legislatures did NOT make those modifications, and your argument is just silly. The States’ executives did, through their election officers, and the States’ courts upheld those modifications. That’s what the contention is.

JusticeDelivered | December 8, 2020 at 9:23 am

How about other states also sue? Pile on! !

Do you think CNN will put out more than three words about this suit? And if they do, will Facebook and Twitter allow links to it?

    CorkyAgain in reply to irv. | December 8, 2020 at 12:52 pm

    They only need two words to dismiss it as a “desperate ploy”.
    Three for “grasping at straws”.

    But my three words are “God bless Texas!”

Will the great Punter John Roberts appoint a Special Master to Deep Six the Complaint, Rule on a Technicality or actually or do something he rarely does, decide the issue on the merits?

    Liberty Bell in reply to dystopia. | December 8, 2020 at 9:42 am

    Cowardly John is Chief Justice in name only now. Justice Alito is now the defacto Chief Justice.

      I think it is Clarence Thomas.

        TRosenblum in reply to Ira. | December 8, 2020 at 10:21 am

        Yes, it is now the “Thomas wing”.
        And, recall the cretin Biden leading the high tech lynching of Thomas to keep a BLACK AMERICAN off the Court.
        Karma is a Bitch!!!

        Oregon Mike in reply to Ira. | December 8, 2020 at 1:54 pm

        You’re right. It is Clarence Thomas. He’s the senior associate justice, so he gets to assign who writes the opinions.

          Milhouse in reply to Oregon Mike. | December 8, 2020 at 2:32 pm

          Only if Roberts is in the dissent. For that reason alone he may join majority decisions, so he can pick who writes the opinion.

          The other five law observing Justices are can produce their own concurring opinions. Roberts, assign it to himself. The others can concur with a different opinion. He made himself irrelevant.

          If he could have done damage control he would not have been the a dissenter in ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO. Here in typical Roberts fashion he agreed on the law but not the remedy.

    Ulysses in reply to dystopia. | December 8, 2020 at 10:31 am

    Why do members of the Legacy Media Count Roberts as a Conservative? The Court is not split 6-3 on political cases. It is 5-4. Roberts cover was blown the day the much more conscientious Anthony Kennedy retired.

      Valerie in reply to Ulysses. | December 8, 2020 at 1:05 pm

      My theory is that anybody competent enough to cite the relevant law is considered Conservative, when it comes to judgeships. The Obama district court judges have been known to leave out that step, entirely.

      They call Jennifer Rubin a conservative, too. I think they struggle with reality…or maybe with telling the truth.

      RobM in reply to Ulysses. | December 8, 2020 at 3:00 pm

      I can’t think of a ” conservative ” opinion that Roberts has mattered for. Even what he’s ruled on, he’s narrowed so much as to be inapplicable to other cases. Maybe I’m wrong.

    fredx3 in reply to dystopia. | December 8, 2020 at 11:45 am

    The constant stupid criticism of Roberts occurs only because you do not understand the law. You read something in a right wing source that tells you he did not act like a total partisan shill, and you get upset. In almost all cases, Roberts did the conservative thing, the right thing. There is very little difference between his rulings and the rulings of Alito etc. But those who get their jollies distorting everything he does and viewing his careful, legally correct rulings through the prism of highly partisan politics and near insane devotion to one side or the other cannot be expected to understand. In most cases that you people whine about, he has made a decision as to whether an injunction should issue, not the merits of the case. He can rule one way on the injunction, and then rule the opposite way when the case is actually fully heard. You should be upset about Gorsuch, because his Bockert ruling was ridiculous. But no, you people just want to be leftists on the right, and you want justices to be totally, completely partisan rather than judges.

      Ulysses in reply to fredx3. | December 8, 2020 at 12:16 pm

      A rather odd comment. We have panels of judges because judges often disagree as to the law. Roberts has a habit of using procedural legerdemain to avoid deciding issues on the merits. See NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL.; HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. PERRY ET AL. and ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK. The list is far from exhaustive. It is reflective of a Justice who is determined to not make good caselaw.

      Valerie in reply to fredx3. | December 8, 2020 at 1:07 pm

      I have learned to discount any comment that refers to us as “you people.”

      Whoops! Looks like this mind-reader thinks he knows more than he actually does. What fun.

        clerk in reply to UJ. | December 8, 2020 at 2:48 pm

        A sentient priestess who extra-sensory insight into my inner thoughts and legal education. All without knowing a thing about me. Remarkable.

MattLauersNob | December 8, 2020 at 9:37 am

PA supreme court and Adolf Wolf need to be slapped down or we go from Representative Republic to Banana Republic.

This one’s SUPER huge. It’s based on the USSC’s original jurisdiction, meaning the Court MUST take and decide. US Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2, Para. 2. The Court can not duck this one.

Touche, Texas, Touche.

    TRosenblum in reply to pfg. | December 8, 2020 at 10:19 am

    You’re right–HUUUUUUGE…Other States should join in.

    BillyHW in reply to pfg. | December 8, 2020 at 11:08 am

    Are you sure that SCOTUS has to take up the case? Can you explain further?

      Anonamom in reply to BillyHW. | December 8, 2020 at 11:30 am

      I suspect what he means that even in declining a full hearing, SCOTUS will be making a statement. Whether they want to or not.

      fscarn in reply to BillyHW. | December 8, 2020 at 11:47 am

      “will be placed on the docket”

      from Rule 17, Procedure in an Original Action, “4. The case will be placed on the docket when the motion for leave to file and the initial pleading are filed with Clerk.”

      A pdf of the Court’s rules is available online.

      See also 28 U.S. Code § 1251(a).

Thank you Ted

Well that’s an interesting tactic. The reasoning and logic is sound. The procedural issues are not clear; one state asserting standing on behalf of the their own citizens to prevent an electoral certification in other states?

Ummm….ok maybe. My concern would be what is the limiting principle? Could CA then use the same tactic to contest the results in TX or NC? If not why not?

    alaskabob in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 10:10 am

    We had that in 1860. Several states did intervene against other states…but in a different court.

    Anonamom in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 10:13 am

    I agree. The question this raises is, “What’s next?” And, I’m afraid, the answer is, “Nothing good.” Regardless of whether the Court hears the case, I think that the door has been opened and that we should expect lawfare to expand to states suing other states. It’s beginning to look like Benjamin Franklin’s concerns are being realized.

    TRosenblum in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 10:18 am

    It’s a violation of the equal protection clause of the Const.
    For one, the States with real voter integrity laws and security is harmed by the cheating States with unsecure, improper ID voting rules.

    MarkSmith in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 10:28 am

    I would hope CA would. Discovery on CA election systems would be great. Where is the voter fraud in Texas? An attack on Texas will just bring out more of why they did not use the Dominion systems.

    Pop corn is popping.

      randian in reply to MarkSmith. | December 8, 2020 at 9:20 pm

      You’ve hinted at a real problem with election fraud cases: judges don’t allow discovery. You have to present all your evidence up front and will not be given leave to find more. Naturally that means election fraud cases can’t meet the absurd “change the results” bar the courts put in front of plaintiffs. They have no means to develop the evidence sufficiently to meet that bar.

      A related problem is that the opposing parties don’t pay a price for evidence destruction. In a regular civil case, if the opposing party is found to have destroyed evidence that pretty much guarantees losing. In election fraud cases, if for example the ballot envelopes have been destroyed and machines wiped that should be an automatic win for the plaintiff. Instead courts rule that since you now can’t prove your case the election stands.

    Voyager in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 11:00 am

    I expect Texas is fully ready to defend it’s count in court.

    At this point, I think that would be a better standard, if all States ran their elections to withstand strict scrutiny.

    CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 11:32 am


    This is a huge ask by TX. The practical effect is to remove the safe harbour protection from these states because it’s doesn’t like these states electoral process and outcome.

    That strikes me as a dangerous precedent to set in motion for the future.

    Is TX arguing that mere uncertainty due to, as yet unproven allegations, is enough to remove safe harbour? Seems like it.

    We all know this election was hinky and we want the perpetrators put in jail. Claiming an equal protection argument against a state by another state in the conduct of that state’s election procedures seems like a bad idea to me.

    Now if the very narrow argument is to:
    1. Intervene with a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo but not allow ‘certification’ of electors pending

    A. Legit challenge and judicial investigation into ballots being counted in those states which wouldn’t have been counted absent illegal decrees from non legislative actors; SoS, local elections officials

    B. That the status quo reverts absent a finding of enough unlawful ballots and the States don’t loose but rather are ‘delayed’ from safe harbour

    I don’t see how this works mechanically. Once safe harbour date passes the states lose that protection. All their electors, as I understand it, would be in ‘dispute’. That starts a chain of potential competing electors and congress making decisions about electors.

    I don’t see SCOTUS buying this.

      I like your argument [sarc]. We have to allow fraud to destroy our nation because if we take reasonable steps to combat it we risk destroying the nation. The terrible thing is, this has been the argument for decades, with regard to organized election fraud.

      Look, we have direct evidence of election law violations in specific locales [banning party representatives from counting facilities and taking extraordinary steps to keep them from effectively monitoring tabulation of the votes]. All criminal violations. We have mounting circumstantial evidence that actual, physical vote fraud occurred, in these same locations. And, if proven to be true, such activities would have illegally denied Donald Trump his lawful election to the Office of President of the United States of America.

      In any other case, the courts would fall all over themselves to enjoin any action which would cause harm, especially irreparable to the citizens of this nation? Stop building a border wall and continue to allow an invasion of illegal immigrants? Granted. Continue releasing undocumented aliens into US society without control? Granted. Allow an obviously unconstitutional program to continue? Granted. And the list goes on. However, when faced with growing evidence that election illegalities denied the lawful election of a candidate to the highest office in the land, no court wants to get involved. Suddenly, evidence ceases to be evidence, standing dissolves and spurious non-legal arguments are put forth to deny the requested actions. The courts have become moot. That means that attorneys are obsolete. We apparently need neither. Still think that the Union can be saved?

        CommoChief in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2020 at 12:09 pm


        I want the same thing as you; count the votes from lawfully submitted and handled/processed ballots. Toss the illegal ballots no matter how many there are. Prosecute at the Federal level everyone complicit in any election fraud.

        My concern is the issue of Federalism. I am sympathetic to the argument made by TX. I don’t see SCOTUS buying it at this late date. I am concerned about a precedent being established whereby one state or a combination of states are granted standing to challenge the internal processes of another state.

        I hope SCOTUS is willing to thread the needle in this instance maybe using the argument that Rona doesn’t over ride the constitution and all these changes in the ‘swing states’ made by non legislative actors ate null and the ballots arising from these changes are voided. While limiting the decision and it’s scope to the unique circumstances of 2020.

        I just don’t think setting a precedent that CA or any other state has the ability to intervene in the internal processes of another state is a good idea. Bad enough dealing with fed agencies, I can’t imagine the pain resulting from a CA agency being allowed to intervene in another state.

          The argument against federalism was lost in 1865. Sorry.

          Now, there have been a couple of recent cases, dealing with interstate commerce, where the courts have ruled that internal restrictions by individual states are unconstitutional if they interfere with the right of citizens of other states to engage in interstate commerce. National issues, protected by the US Constitution override any state’s rights issue.

          I hate to keep repeating this, but we are dealing with a national election for national office. And, we have significant evidence to strongly suggest that illegal activities, by state agents in six political subdivisions of five states, resulted in one candidate being illegally denied election to the office in question. To allow the current results, from these jurisdictions to stand, without confirmation, illegally disenfranchises the entire electorate in this country. That is the issue. Essentially, these locales accomplish exactly what the Electoral College was designed to eliminate, domination of the election for President by a few states.

          I’m glad that you brought up CORONA virus actions by individual states. In the US, citizens have the right of unrestricted travel from one state to another, especially in pursuit of interstate commerce. So, it seems that denying a person to travel into or through a state because they do not have a current negative test for the virus would raise a huge red flag. What would happen if all surrounding states denied interstate truckers the ability to exit NY until they had completed a 14 day quarantine period? How many truckers would enter NY to deliver food and goods? And what would this do to regional interstate commerce? Citizens of this nation have certain rights which are guaranteed across individual state lines by the Constitution. There was a very good reason for that.

          “…at this late date.”

          Accurate filing earlier was not possible as pre-election, the parties had yet to be wronged (would have been dismissed as premature), nor had the evidence of illegal actions or machinations been compiled (no evidence, no case).

          buckeyeminuteman in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 1:50 pm

          CommoChief, think CARB. Failifornia already intervenes in all other states business.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 2:02 pm


          The late date is absolutely accurate. 8 December is the date that electors are certified. The election was on 3 November. In the intervening period and indeed in the period pre election, the deviations from legislatively approved modifications to election laws and procedures were known.

          TX is in essence making the Strait forward argument that only the legislature in these states can legally and constitutionally alter elections laws/procedures. These changes by non legislative actors; SoS, local elections officials etc and other deviations from legislatively enacted provisions have been apparent for at least a month. That makes them fall under my description of ‘at this late date: the very day that electors are certified under the safe harbour provisions.

          As to a national election. No we do not have a national election for President. We have fifty separate state elections plus DC which determine electors. Even then these state elections are conducted in individual precincts.

          That is a good thing. If a.precinct or precincts are found to have violated the legislative standards then we can invalidate the ballots in that precinct(s) without tossing the whole state. So if say Wayne County, Detroit, is so fubar as to be unable to be counted then only Wayne County/Detroit has their illegal ballots tossed. The remainder of counties in MI without those illegal ballots could be tabulated.

          This system non centralized system allows the guilty to be punished while refraining from punishment for those counties/precinct that played by the rules.

        buckeyeminuteman in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2020 at 1:47 pm

        Bingo, Mac. You’re spot on.

        fast182 in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2020 at 3:22 pm

        Go, Mac, go. The constitution is not a suicide pact. If the left can steal a presidential election then we may never have another fair election. It could easily be the end of the republic. Ultimately, most of us here want to go back to a limited government, with three co-equal branches, where the supreme court isn’t omnipotent, but the only way to get there is to make the left howl by applying the “new rules” to them, good and hard. Only then will we have any chance to put it back together.

        And it would be ultimate payback for Thomas and Kavanaugh especially. Reap what you sow.

        mark311 in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2020 at 5:54 pm

        Hate to break it too but their is very little evidence of election fraud. One of the main reasons the various lawsuits have failed is because they have presented virtually no evidence to the courts.

      “because it’s doesn’t like these states electoral process and outcome.” A troll level comment.
      Look up what “original jurisdiction” means.

        CommoChief in reply to Rick. | December 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm


        Thanks, but I understand the concept of original jurisdiction.

        Can you please provide cite to previous cases of a State attempting to intervene in the election of another State based on the arguments made by TX?

        Again, I hope that SCOTUS is willing to find a way in effect, combine the cases and rule that Rona doesn’t override the constitution which grants the legislature of each state and no other entity the right and duty to create elections laws.

        That’s a tight needle to thread this late.

      Valerie in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 1:10 pm

      If there is no remedy for fraud in this case, this is our last election. We’ll be Iran after this.

        Ronbert in reply to Valerie. | December 8, 2020 at 3:44 pm

        Every election hereafter will be decided by their governors or their SC or the election will be decided by whichever side can produce the most ballots. I can see an election with 300-400 million votes.?

    maxmillion in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 11:42 am

    Procedurally it is very clear under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction extends to “controversies between two or more states,” and the controversy alleged by Texas here is that by virtue of the illegal election practices in these 4 states, Texas voters were disenfranchised in their efforts to honestly elect a president. Looks good to me.

      CommoChief in reply to maxmillion. | December 8, 2020 at 12:39 pm


      The danger here is creating a precedent. None of us would appreciate CA attempting to intervene into our own State(s). God knows where that would lead.

      I hope SCOTUS will find a way to get the illegal ballots tossed while limiting the decision to the unique circumstances of 2020.

    The closest analogy is the Election of 1864, Lincolns second term. The Court by analogy can treat the States found to have cheated in the same manner the Confederate States were treated.

I am from GA. We just had a bogus election here. I have no problem with Texas suing GA since the Justice department has their thumbs up their asses.

Georgia also has a Governor, Secretary of State, and numerous election officials that need at a minimum to resign their position or do some serious jail time.

WTF? This is so ridiculous they should be sanctioned.

1. It’s none of Texas’s business how any other state’s legislature decided to have its electors chosen. If those states’ legislatures set in place defective procedures, that is their business. Even if those legislatures still have the right at this point to retroactively change those procedures, and to choose electors after the date set by congress for that choice, it’s certain that no court could order them to.

2. No court can set aside the Dec 14 date. The constitution explicitly says Congress shall set the date for the electors to vote, and Congress has done so. Only Congress can change it, and this congress isn’t going to, because the House likes it as it is.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:13 am

    For those whose lives are totally structured by the law, the legal theft of the election must be comforting.

    TRosenblum in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:16 am

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Times like these, it’s best not to speak!

    fast182 in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:32 am

    Oh get a grip, Millhouse. The US supreme court routinely changes the constitution (abortion, immigration, etc.), so of course they could rule that the vote in those specific states, where election official openly violated their own state laws, as invalid, or delay the Dec. 14th date. I totally understand the slippery slope argument against such a decision, but it could happen. It’s the left who has elevated the SC beyond their role as a co-equal branch. You reap what you sow.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact after all.

      Milhouse in reply to fast182. | December 8, 2020 at 10:39 am

      The Supreme Court can do anything it likes, including crowning Kamala Harris as Queen for life, and there isn’t anyone who can overrule it; but it has no authority to do that. Which means a justice who cares about his oath cannot vote for such a decision, no matter what the consequences are; even if it burns the country down. Fiat justitia ruat cœlum.

      And the Supreme Court has no authority to change the December 14 date that Congress has set for the electors to vote. The constitution explicitly requires that Congress set such a date, and that it be the same throughout the USA. Any electoral vote cast on a different date is automatically invalid.

        “The Supreme Court can do anything it likes, including crowning Kamala Harris as Queen for life, and there isn’t anyone who can overrule it;..

        Nonsense. Laws originate from Congress. All SCOTUS is empowered to do is to rule on constitutionality. They have no power to enforce anything.

        The Father of the Democrat Party himself, Andrew Jackson, famously ignored SCOTUS rulings to avoid civil war and no one could stop him. SCOTUS is the weakest branch of our government for a reason.

        randian in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 9:25 pm

        If SCOTUS has no authority to do that then SCPA similarly had no authority to rule as it did.

    Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:52 am

    Actually, one state has a Constitutional right to sue another state if internal policies of the second state adversely affect those of the first state in federally constitutionally protected areas. As I noted a few days ago, in the last few years, we have seen this applied to interstate commerce. And, the election for the Office of the President is a NATIONAL election. What the member states do affects all the people of the nation [hence the 14th Amendment reference]. If sufficient votes were illegally awarded to Joe Biden, so as to deny Donald Trump the lawful election to that office, then this materially impacts the rights of by allowing a small number of people within a few states to disenfranchise a huge number of people living elsewhere in the country.

    Mow, The requested relief is very mild, here. The plaintiffs are not asking for the Court to compel the defendant states to appoint electors which will vote for Trump. They are asking that the certification process be suspended until such time as the defendant states can comply with the Constitutional procedure for the election and appointment of electors, either through a special election or action of the State Legislature. Considering thee compelling evidence already presented of probable election fraud, in the defendant states, this seems like a reasonable fix. To make the claim, as you are doing, that a member state has some right to act as a pirate state, causing harm to its neighbors, without those neighbors having a route to redress, is pretty far out there.

      ObeliskToucher in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2020 at 12:34 pm

      Read the “PRAYER FOR RELIEF” on page 46 of the filing,

      “B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.”

      If the Supes grant this “prayer,” it would take 62 electoral votes completely off the table. In that event, neither candidate receives the required 270 votes and the election is thrown directly into the House of Representatives.

      One can hope…

        Not necessarily.

        You have to read the entire Prayer For Relief. B: only comes into pay if the electors have already voted. What the plaintiff is asking for, is for the SCOTUS to force the defendants to clean up their acts and provide clean, lawful votes in this election. This can be accomplished in a multitude of ways. A special election for Presidential electors could be held, in these states. The votes for elector, cast in the offending jurisdictions, could be removed from the vote totals. A detailed audit if the votes cast could be done to eliminate illegal or illegitimate vote, if they can be identified and purged. The problem here is that NONE of the defendants have taken any meaningful steps to identify and correct the fraud involved. And, as these states essentially control the electoral process, in this election, their lack of action directly affects the votes of every other voter in the nation.

        If the Supes grant this “prayer,” it would take 62 electoral votes completely off the table. In that event, neither candidate receives the required 270 votes and the election is thrown directly into the House of Representatives.

        This idiocy again?! No, if 62 electors are removed then the majority Biden needs would become 239, and he’d have that easily.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:53 am

    I’ve read the 12th Amendment carefully Milhouse, and it does not explicitly grant Congress the power to set the meeting date for the Electors. It simply says “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, …”

    This supersedes Article II, section 1, clause 3, which originally provided the outline for the Electoral College. Neither provided Congress with explicit authority to govern when and how the Electors would be chosen. Indeed, the Constitution is silent on exactly when the Electors must vote, but it’s very clear on HOW.

    The 22nd amendment does not provide further authority to the Congress on the Electors.

    The 12A also doesn’t prevent Congress from writing legislation to govern aspects of the election. So it appears that Congress simply wrote some codifying language about the details. That of course can be reviewed by the USSC with sufficient reason (e.g., a lawsuit!).

    None of this changes the original complaint as filed by Texas: that certain states, by failing to choose Electors according to THEIR previously-established rules, have violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Part of ‘equal protection’ is ‘due process’, and fundamental to due process is that one doesn’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Recall that the USSC in 1964 used the same clause to invalidate how states elected their own state senators (Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533). So it’s not that much of a stretch to consider that the USSC could use the 14A to ensure that states conduct their elections properly, since Article II, 12A, and 22A all provide a framework for how it’s supposed to be done.

      Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 8, 2020 at 5:15 pm

      I’ve read the 12th Amendment carefully Milhouse, and it does not explicitly grant Congress the power to set the meeting date for the Electors.

      “The Congress may determine […] the day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the united states.”

      This supersedes Article II, section 1, clause 3,

      No, it doesn’t. NOBODY until you has ever claimed or imagined that it does. Congratulations for coming up with a brand new fallacy.

      The 12A also doesn’t prevent Congress from writing legislation to govern aspects of the election.

      Article 2 does. It says the manner in which each state appoints its electors is up to the state legislature. The only thing Congress can regulate is the date on which the appointment is to take place.

      The Equal Protection clause of the 14A requires people within a state to be treated equally. It does not require people in different states to be treated equally.

    maxmillion in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:54 am

    Are you a retard in real life too, or is it only something you pose as on the internet?

      Milhouse in reply to maxmillion. | December 8, 2020 at 5:17 pm

      Maximillion, I am very sincere when I tell you that you should take a long walk off a short pier. I hope you die a horrifying and painful death. You disgust me.

    Ulysses in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 11:00 am

    A very extreme position. A State has an interest in ensuring another State does not adversely affect its citizens by unconstitutional means.

    Roberts will agree with you and predictably cite lack of standing. The three liberals will be the three liberals. The other five will be included to delve into the merits.

    BillyHW in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 11:09 am

    You were beat up relentlessly in the schoolyard as a child, weren’t you Milhouse?

      Milhouse in reply to BillyHW. | December 8, 2020 at 5:18 pm

      I had the good fortune not to go to school with evil sick f*cks like you, Billy. I pity the kids you bullied when you were at school.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 11:54 am

    Maybe when you can figure out simple state constitutional issues you can intelligently opine on state to state federal issues.

    Notice whenever the little house is wrong he just disappears.

      Milhouse in reply to Barry. | December 8, 2020 at 5:28 pm

      Barry, you’re a f*cking liar. You can go take a long walk off a short pier too. The world would be a happier place without you.

      Do you seriously expect me to keep checking each thread, every day, forever?!

      Your irrelevant and dishonest claim in that thread is now answered. Happy? But I will not be checking it for further discussion unless you alert me to it.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 7:48 pm

        As I replied in the other thread, when you are wrong, which is often, in addition to disappearing, you resort to name calling and calling everyone a liar.

        You were flat out wrong. You couldn’t be bothered to look it up.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 7:49 pm

        Oh, and as for walking off a pier, short or long, I’m a really good swimmer. So you’ll have to do better than that.

    tlcomm2 in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 12:00 pm

    I am not sure if you are missing the point intentionally. Texas is defending the rights of the legislatures of those states to pass and enforce election law, not attempting to countermand the laws as passed. The laws and procedures were changed in defiance of the legislatures by their courts as well as others.

    starride in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 12:08 pm

    You are missing the point Millhouse, Texas is stating that the states they sued did not follow their own laws. And that unlawfulness disenfranchises Texas voters. Its a simple case and simple logic process. If the states did not follow the law their election is in question.

    Concise in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 2:03 pm

    Unfortunately true. This is going nowhere. Everything else aside, the Court will not extend standing to TX to dispute the conduct of sister state legislatures.

    thad_the_man in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 2:08 pm

    It’s none of Texas’s business how any other state’s legislature decided to have its electors chosen. If those states’ legislatures set in place defective procedures

    It’s stupid statements like these that make me sick the few times I have to agree with Milhouse.

    Even a cursory look at the filing shows that one of the arguments is that in each case, the state legislatures did not set in place the claimed defective procedures. It was the states courts that set them in place.

    Even if the legislatures did set in the procedures, they are still bound by the constitution. If legislatures set in place a procedure where the electors were appointed by vote with blacks votes being 3/45 the value of white votes, the SCOTUS would be justified in overturning the vote.

      Milhouse in reply to thad_the_man. | December 8, 2020 at 5:32 pm

      Texas would have no standing to challenge such a law. Black voters in that state would have standing to challenge it, under the 15th amendment. (NOT the 14th. The 14th does not protect the right to vote, since that is not a fundamental right; that is why the 15th was needed.)

    Elzorro in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 3:13 pm

    Hard argument.Do you mean that NO COURT has sway over each state legislature has powere at any time or manner as to appointment of electors? Is the appointment at will by any manner they so choose? A plenary constitutional power? I agree.
    The issue is not ‘the elections’ … plural…50 of them. They have failed due to fraud.

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

Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy.

And yet “lawful elections” for the office of Elector are not in the constitution. They’re a grant from the state legislatures.

    I’m sure on Planet Milhouse, lawmakers create laws for purposes other than for establishing “lawfulness”. It’s all about printing books to line the shelves of lawyers in a world where laws have no meaning.

    Elzorro in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 12:22 pm

    That they are.

    Elzorro in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 3:19 pm

    Now, suppose the state legislature of Wyoming decided to appoint electors by the phase of the Moon on election day. If waxing for the republican, if waning for the democrat, if full for the libertarian. Would that be constitutional? Yep, I think so.

      Milhouse in reply to Elzorro. | December 8, 2020 at 5:40 pm

      It could even make it depend on the phase of the moon on some other date. The actual appointment must be on election day, but the legislature could say that “On the first Tuesday after the first of November the secretary of state shall determine what phase the moon will be in on the coming January 20th, and shall appoint the electors accordingly.” Or it could skip all the fuss and just say “On the first Tuesday after the first of November the Democratic National Committee shall appoint the state’s electors” and be done with it.

Lucifer Morningstar | December 8, 2020 at 10:12 am

Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin In U.S. Supreme Court To Have Legislatures Appoint Electors

No, that’s not quite right. Texas has asked permission from the Supreme Court to file a lawsuit against PA, GA. MI and WI. And as far as I can tell the SCOTUS hasn’t granted that permission so there is currently nothing to see here. Not really. I’ll await the SCOTUS decision on whether or not they will grant permission and will consider such a lawsuit before saying anything else.

    I get your point, but as an earlier commentator noted, Texas is suing in the USSC based on the Court’s original, not appellate, jurisdiction. US Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2, Para. 2.

    Milhouse in reply to mrtomsr. | December 8, 2020 at 10:51 am

    That blog post is utter garbage. The author is either insane or deliberately dishonest. Foster v Love absolutely does not require the result of any election to be known by the end of the day it is held. NO ELECTION IS EVER DECLARED ON THE SAME DAY. Not for presidential electors, or for Congress (which is what the case is about), or for any other office. They’re still counting votes in some congressional districts; does this author really imagine that those results, when they’re finally determined, are invalid?! If so the congress has no members at all, and there has never been a valid president, ever.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 10:57 am

      You might want to look at the arguments in those posts a tad more carefully. I’m not sure I buy it but then I’m not an elections and constitution lawyer. To call it ‘garbage’ says more about you than about the posts in question.

        Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 8, 2020 at 5:54 pm

        No, they’re garbage. I looked much more carefully than it deserved, just in case there was something there, but it turned out to be a waste of time. It’s just garbage and more garbage, a ridiculous concept that would invalidate every election for anything, anywhere, ever. No election result is ever officially declared on the same day as it was held.

    dmacleo in reply to mrtomsr. | December 8, 2020 at 11:06 am

    good rule of thumb. take everything from that site with a grain of salt. then toss the salt away and ignore that site.

      dmacleo in reply to dmacleo. | December 8, 2020 at 4:14 pm

      lot of down votes.
      hey gp fans.
      how many of these titles came to fruition
      we got them now
      we have proof
      they are busted
      etc so on so forth

      Milhouse in reply to dmacleo. | December 8, 2020 at 5:56 pm

      Yes. There is very little point in every looking at that site. Anything valid that appears there will surely also appear elsewhere. And anything that doesn’t appear anywhere else is bound to be false.

      The plain fact is that Jim Hoft is a damned liar. I came to that conclusion after his “inside information” on Darren Wilson’s injuries turned out to have been completely made up.

        The Gateway Pundit is an EXCELLENT site and VERY rarely wrong on what they post. On that rare occasion, they’ll correct themselves.

        I’ve been reading then for YEARS along with LI.

        GWP is great and truthful… Not disinformation agents like “house”

          dmacleo in reply to LisaGinNZ. | December 9, 2020 at 9:48 am

          remember when he posted a link to a tweet that said masks were going ot be required inside peoples houses?
          remember when some of us dug into the executive order (iirc was chicago) and proved how it didn’t say that?
          we were banned from the site. iirc there were 5 of us.
          hoft can go fk himself. hes a clickbait piece of crap.
          small portion of that issue he got called on

    fredx3 in reply to mrtomsr. | December 8, 2020 at 11:52 am

    The guy who wrote that article is not a legal scholar by any means. He appears to just be someone with a law degree. Gateway Pundit sort of lied when they pretended he is some legal scholar. He was so important, that they did not even mention his name. He is making a plausible, but ultimately spurious argument that will never fly.

    mrtomsr in reply to mrtomsr. | December 8, 2020 at 12:51 pm

    Thanks for the input. I don’t know enough to evaluate information like that. I do know enough to bring it here to be vetted by people who’s comments I have been reading for quite awhile to form my opinion about it. As I originally said, I hope his arguments are sound, but now maybe I’m seeing they’re not.

      Milhouse in reply to mrtomsr. | December 8, 2020 at 6:06 pm

      If you want to know what Foster v Love really says, it says that the election itself must be held on the day Congress said, and not earlier.

      Louisiana has what it calls a “primary election” (which has nothing to do with party primaries, it just means the first round of the election), and then if nobody gets a majority it has a runoff, just like Georgia is having now. It used to hold the “primary” before the national election day, and the runoff, if one was necessary, on election day.

      The Supreme Court said that was fine, if there was a runoff. But if no runoff was needed, because someone got a majority the first time, then it violates the date Congress set. Congress said the election must be held on the Tuesday after Nov 1, and Louisiana wasn’t doing that. So now it holds the “primary” on election day, and the runoff, if necessary, later. And that, the Supreme Court said, is absolutely hunky dory. So any suggestion that merely counting votes after election day violates this decision is just complete garbage.

William–no offense, but you should have “seen this coming”…and others should have also–it’s a huge legal issue. I’ve been writing legal scholars for weeks now asking if there is a cause of action by non cheating States against the Dem-led (& GA) cheating States. I submit citizens of Texas, Fla. & others have had their votes disenfranchised by the States that changed their voting rules on mail-in ballots based on phony excuse of phony virus! This is a violation of the equal protection clause.

Other States should join in now!

However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020.

NO, IT DOESN’T. Whichever lawyers drafted and OK’d this claim should be fired for incompetence. The section simply doesn’t say that.

On the contrary, § 1, not § 7, requires that presidential electors be appointed on November 3, 2020.

§ 2 then says that if a state chooses to appoint its electors by popular election on Nov 3, and held that election but it somehow failed to produce a choice, then they may be appointed in some other manner on a later date. (That answers my question from yesterday.)

§ 5 says that if before Nov 3 a state had a procedure in place for resolving contested appointments, and that procedure has worked itself out by December 8, so that by that date the state is certain who its electors are, then the vice president must count those electors’ votes. If by December 8 the state still can’t say who its electors are then there’s no guarantee. (I don’t know whether this provision is constitutional; no vice president has ever challenged it. Nor does it say, if a state misses the deadline, who decides whether to count its electors’ votes, or which ones to count if there is more than one set. The constitution seems to imply that it’s the VP’s choice, but doesn’t explicitly say so.)

§ 7, the one cited by this incompetent motion, requires that the electors, who have already been appointed, vote on December 14. And congress’s authority and duty to set that date is explicitly in the constitution.

this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President.

Weirder and weirder. Now it wants the election on Dec 14 to go ahead without those states’ electors, but if nobody gets a majority of the votes cast on Dec 14 then those states should hold a new election, appoint new electors, and have them vote after Dec 14, and yet have those votes count.

First of all that makes no sense because if the election on the 14th goes ahead without those states it’s almost certain that someone will get a majority; a tie is unlikely.

Second, the constitution explicitly requires that the election be held on one day throughout the USA; you can’t have most states’ electors voting on the 14th, and the defendant states voting on some later date.

    Titan28 in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 1:10 pm

    I take you point, Milhouse. But the election isn’t held on one day anymore, is it? People are voting months ahead and votes are still being counted days after election day.

    Which is exactly how Democrats want it.

      fast182 in reply to Titan28. | December 8, 2020 at 3:13 pm

      Great point.

      Milhouse in reply to Titan28. | December 8, 2020 at 6:12 pm

      No, the presidential election is held on one day, which will be December 14. There’s no early voting in that. All the votes are cast on that day.

      You are referring not to the presidential election, which is what this is about, but to the appointment of the electors who will get to vote in that election. All 50 states have chosen to appoint them by a general election. That too has an official date, set by congress, but early voting is allowed, and if necessary the state legislature can allow late voting too.

I’m no lawyer, pundit, or actor portraying one, but it was clear to me from the beginning that a legal challenge should:
1. Address all affected swing states as a group
2. Engage SCOTUS’ original jurisdiction

Aside from this TX challenge,one needs to be submitted straight to SCOTUS on RICO grounds, roping in the US and foreign conspirators connected to Dominion. I suspect Giuliani and Powell and their helpers have been working hard at this angle. This is where Flynn and military intelligence can help.

Professor: In the third paragraph, didn’t you mean _December_ 14?

Who gets to decide whether SCOTUS takes up the case? Is it Alito (5th circuit), Roberts, or four out of the nine justices?

3rd paragraph should say “December 14h”, not “October 14th”

I’m not convinced this case has standing, but I think its main purpose is to give the sense to SCOTUS of how contested this election is. From that point of view, I certainly hope it works.

I am really looking forward to today’s Mark “Slash” Levin show.

I favor eliminating presidential elections and returning to the state legislatures decide. That would bring the office closer to the people and make local elections much more effective in determining our course. Far from globalism. The further the better.

Blaise MacLean | December 8, 2020 at 12:41 pm

This was mentioned…suggested…last week on Levin’s radio show. He said he hoped Texas was listening. Apparently they were.

Mr. Jacobson, Thank you for the article; interesting and informative legal post and the comments are very illuminating on the nuances of the issue.

While Milhouse recovers from his spanking, one of the larger questions Texas will have to surmount is that of standing: does Texas have standing to complain that other states were not following their own laws? Did Texas suffer a concrete injury? There are two possible answers:

1) No, only the people of the offending state(s) are impacted. They are the ones who may have had their right to vote taken away or dlluted. So the case is more properly brought by a citizen of the offending state(s). That’s being done but has to occur by ordinary means — a suit to state or federal court followed by discovery, review, judgement, and appeal. That of course will take far too long.

2) Yes, because the Constitution says (Article II, section 1) that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” and if the offending state does not follow that provision of the constitution (and the 12th Amendment), other states are harmed because someone may be declared President who was not lawfully elected, and the offending state is depriving other states of a true election process.

Turn that argument around: suppose Trump had a narrow EV lead. Now suppose California’s AG alleges that Florida, where Trump won, somehow chose it’s Electors in an illegal fashion — let’s say that the state Supreme Court modified the rules on the day of election to exclude a whole bunch of Biden votes, perhaps enough to swing that vote.

Now then, what do you suppose California, Illinois, and New York, all indigo-blue states, would do?

Yup. They’d file this same suit (and suits in the state Florida courts). And they’d be screaming.

And Milhouse would likely endorse their claim 🙂

So it’s a very interesting suit, and I’d like to think that the USSC will be forced to deal with the underlying issue and not just dismiss on the basis of standing.

Has (or how has) the federal government decided environmental disputes between states where one state’s laws were either 1) more lax or 2) produced an unfavorable result in another state?

The problem is ‘the manner’ in which the legislatures have chosen to appoint the electors. Popular elections. Clearly this has failed. Let the state legislators fight it out. This would elevate our local representative and bring the power closer to the citizens. Your local state representative would gain much power. You would gain much power. Globalists and global corporations would lose power. Gring the power home. To the people.

In the end we will find that the state legislatures have all the power. Regardless of any court or governor. All the power resides in the legislatures of the several states. Thank God.

The next election should be about local state legislators and the issue should be about whether or not they will use their plenary powers under the constitution to bring power back to the people.

Arrogant and Petulant Judge Sullivan Finally Dismisses Flynn Case as Moot, It’s Over

Could this be a sign of Hope that Sullivan realizes that Biden not win this?

    TX-rifraph in reply to MarkSmith. | December 8, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    Or, could they be realizing that they need to stop digging? Every day, the hole gets deeper. Their infrastructure of fraud gets more sunlight by the hour. This was not their plan.

    Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | December 8, 2020 at 6:19 pm

    Nope. It means nothing of the kind. Sullivan had literally no choice but to dismiss the case, because of the pardon. All he could do is what he did, allow all the motions to be filed and basically imply that Flynn deserves the max, but is lucky to have been pardoned so never mind.


To everyone that thinks the suit lacks standing, consider this hypothetical. What if the governor of PA decided to simply appoint electors and completely ignored state law and the state legislature and the state supreme court said it was legal. Do other states still lack standing? What if 20 or 30 states were doing this?

I wish scotus would take this one but I suspect they won’t.
we’ll know soon.

    DeadCons in reply to dmacleo. | December 8, 2020 at 11:21 pm

    Its going to stir up a hornets nest but I think Texas does have standing and the Court will take it. They can’t let state executive branches arbitrarily change their own election law and then expect the rest of the country to eat their sh*t election sandwich.

This has the potential to be the biggest case in history of the world! I don’t think it will go down this way but since SCOTUS has original jurisdiction they could hold a trial and take evidence on all the election fraud disputed facts. Perhaps wisely, Texas has framed the issues as questions of law and I’m sure the Court will want to keep it that way. But imagine the crazy spectacle that is legally possible!!! I wonder if our country would survive it?

First thread to ask my original question
if the calls on Nov 6 to stop voting counting 10 – 11pm
Then they kept counting without observers why are those ( which also happen to be the mass vote dumps) are not tossed out as the counting was supposed to be stopped?

    Milhouse in reply to Skip. | December 8, 2020 at 6:27 pm

    Because you can’t prove those votes were fraudulent. Maybe they got the observers to leave and then behaved completely honestly, for strange psychological reasons of their own. Maybe the counters in Philadelphia who took ballots to the far side of the room, did something with them that the observers couldn’t see, and then came back and counted them, actually just shuffled them around, just to play with the observers’ heads. I don’t believe that any more than you do, but the courts demand proof, and by definition it’s impossible to prove something happened when you were prevented from seeing it.

      randian in reply to Milhouse. | December 8, 2020 at 9:42 pm

      Why should it be necessary to prove the votes were fraudulent? Whether they were fraudulent is irrelevant, they were counted in an unlawful manner. Even if it was provable that none of the votes were fraudulent they should all be thrown out. A cheater should always lose the contest even if they could prove the cheating changed nothing.

    Mac45 in reply to Skip. | December 8, 2020 at 8:21 pm

    Well, Milhouse is both right and wrong, here.

    The ballots, counted during the time period in question in PA, can not be simply thrown out, because, as he noted, it has not been proven that they are fraudulent. However, absolute proof of fraud would not be needed to exclude all votes from the affected precincts, if it can be shown through clear and convincing evidence, that fraud did, in fact, occur and that the level of fraud could have changed the outcome of the election. Unless the individual ballots can be identified, then this is actually the simplest and least invasive method of redress.

    Now, the problem faced, by the Trump people, is time. While we have a large amount circumstantial evidence that fraud occurred, we have no direct, verified evidence that such fraud occurred. We do have direct evidence of several irregularities which appear to be violations of state and federal election laws. Based upon the existing evidence, it should have been a simple matter to have the certification process suspended while evidence was collected, confirmed and presented to the court. Unfortunately, the courts have chosen not to become involved. Now, we are approaching a tipping point where Biden will be certified by default. At that point, the 75+ million Trump voters will have to make a decision on what they wish to do. And, that is where things get sticky.

      randian in reply to Mac45. | December 8, 2020 at 9:48 pm

      Sure they can be thrown out, and if we had an honest judiciary they would be. The votes were counted in a manner contrary to law, therefore they should all be thrown out. Why? Because there’s only one reason to count votes in an unlawful manner, and that’s to cheat (or perhaps to run a false flag operation, but I will ignore that for now). If you cheat, you should lose.

Zerohedge has reported this case HAS BEEN DOCKETED at scotus.


Louisiana has joined TX.

Joanne Nova has good info.

more at:

Can someone other than Milhouse tell me what happens if a state fails to send in electors? Do you still need 270 to prevent it from going to the Congress, or just a majority of the electors that remain? If it’s the second, then isn’t it virtually impossible for it to go to the House in a two-party race?

Do we need SCOTUS to tell the state legislators to appoint their own (hopefully Trump) electors, or can SCOTUS “enjoin” the electors and send it straight to the House? Robert Barnes seems to think the latter, but I’m not sure.

    DeadCons in reply to BillyHW. | December 8, 2020 at 7:00 pm

    I think its closer to the former. The relief asked for by Texas is to order the states to pick electors in a constitutional way and one of those ways is for the legislature to pick them. If they can’t figure out how to do it in a constitutional way and neither candidate has 270 electoral votes then it goes to the house.

      Milhouse in reply to DeadCons. | December 8, 2020 at 8:08 pm

      You are wrong. If these states don’t appoint electors then there are not 538, so the majority needed to win is not 270.

      The only way it can ever get to the house is if there’s a tie, or if a third candidate gets enough votes that nobody has a majority.

See Paragraph 18 under Jurisdiction and Venue. The Equal Protection violation alleged doesn’t depend on affidavits or so-called proof – did the Defendant States permit their election laws to be changed by non-legislative actors (a matter of record)? Did some precincts within defendant States treat similarly situated voters and their ballots differently(a matter of record)? Did those actions (among many others identified in the Texas filing)disadvantage and diminish the votes of Texas (and now Louisiana) citizens?

If Equal Protection is to mean anything, the Court should hear this case. If Equal Protection doesn’t mean anything – Civil Rights don’t mean anything.

Choose your side – both can’t be true.

throughout our history there have been those who stand on the sidelines, wringing their hands, and wailing ” it can’t be done, it can’t be done ! ”

yet the colonists didn’t listen–the wright brothers didn’t listen–henry ford didn’t listen–bell didn’t listen–edison didn’t listen–churchill didn’t listen–patton didn’t listen–von braun didn’t listen–even yeager didn’t listen

there are many, many other examples too numerous to note here

have always put my faith and money in those who are willing to try–paxton is going to try–the stakes are simply too huge to ignore

SCOTUS has an opportunity to fix this–pray they will fulfill their oaths and perform their duty

17 states have now filed amicus