(Updates)Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Ru

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thank you @FeelNoPain for such a kind, and convicting, assessment of my contributions here.  It means a lot that you would approach me with the question in the way that you have.  Being susceptible to all the common failings of the human condition, I will inevitably craft an inadequate response.  But perhaps you'll give me the benefit of the doubt for sincerity where my thinking is weak.

First I don't think Trump's team lost all those court cases.  People who supported Trump independently filed, and independently lost, the large majority of them.  I think Trump's actual legal team filed three cases, and also joined in the Paxton case.  Now having said that, your question is still relevant - regardless of who filed the cases, the record suggests strongly that the fundamental legal arguments advanced by Trump, or independently by his supporters, must be weak, or else that the entire bench at both state and Federal levels is arrayed in conspiracy against him.

Now I haven't read any of the specific filings, and if I had read them my interpretation would not be trustworthy since I don't have a legal education.  But I think generically the main thrust of most of the filings was fraud.  I do believe there has been a lot of fraud, but it would not surprise me if that fraud were not proven sufficiently to stand up in court.  State authorities, whether R or D, have every incentive to argue strenuously against the allegation of fraud because proven fraud would make them look incompetent or corrupt.  And I don't know what it takes legally to prove fraud in court; I would not be surprised to learn that it takes a lot more than what we've seen.

Personally I find very compelling what we have seen, but I recognize that what is compelling to me might not meet a legal standard (and if I were on trial for fraud I would certainly want the standard of evidence to be extremely high).  Where the legal standard surpasses what we can plainly see, I'm more opposed to the legal standard (which I admit I don't understand) than opposed to Trump and his allies for failing to meet that standard.  So I don't believe the entire legal profession is engaged in collusion against Trump, but I do believe that profession has regularly failed us as a free people by creating an arcane and reactive interpretation of law that defies common sense and standard linguistics and that reinforces the special status and privilege of a political ruling class, and I see this as yet another example.  Government with the consent of the governed is not possible when law is interpreted in flat contradiction to the plain sense of the governed, but this is the path the courts have put us on, whether the judges were appointed by R or D.  It's not political collusion against Trump, it's elitist collusion against plain sense, reinforced by media collusion to render that plain sense inert.

On the other side I have argued here previously that the credulous willingness to advance piecemeal *any* allegation of fraud has been detrimental to Trump's case and, more importantly, to the case for credible elections generally.  Trump and his supporters have in many instances been their own worst enemies.  I am amazed that Rudy couldn't find a more effective witness in Michigan than Cyndi Lauper's stupid younger sister (and in fairness the other witnesses were more effective, but it was entirely predictable who would get the air time.)

The Paxton case, however, is not based on allegations of fraud, but of inconsistencies in election procedure that are so great as to be unconstitutional; different thinking is required to assess this one.  Many of us (myself included) believe that Pennsylvania violated the Electors Clause when its Supreme Court unilaterally changed state-level election law; apparently seven SCOTUS Justices believe that "state-level" outweighs "Electors Clause."  As an old-fashioned advocate of state sovereignty within the Reserved Powers, I appreciate deference in the Federal Judiciary regarding those Reserved Powers.  But to me it's clear that the state legislature determines election law, not the state judiciary.  And if one state does not have "standing" to challenge the Federal election procedures of another when the latter contradicts the Constitution, then the court is really telling us that the states cannot appeal to the Federal Judiciary to protect the voting integrity of their own citizens.  We already know that the *Federal* government will intervene in state election laws, but apparently the court will reserve that right strictly to itself; the mere *states* have no such right to look after the integrity of the vote for their own citizens.  It's another example of Federal over-reach at the expense of the states.

What's worse is that SCOTUS didn't reach this specious conclusion after hearing the case - they refused to hear it.

The only possible defense I can think of for their decision is that the Paxton case asks for a decision about four states, but the evidence of non-legislative (hence unconstitutional) changes to election law is limited to one state of the four.

So again I don't see this as collusion or conspiracy against Trump, I see it as legal doctrine that is inadequate to maintain a Republic of free people.  And I don't think this is about Trump; he's just a circumstance in this, a venial distraction from the careful consideration of Constitutional principles.  And while I don't claim the courts are in conspiracy against him, I do suspect his character flaws are too great for many otherwise-fair-minded people to see beyond.

I hope that approaches something reasonable as a defense of the basic appeal to the courts, if not a defense of the specific strategy that was used in that appeal.  Do not hesitate to poke holes in my thinking, or let me know where I've let you down; I'm sure my analysis can use improvement.  And thanks again FeelNoPain for such a humbling and flattering reaction to my sporadic activity here at TBR.

No offense meant here, @SamHouston  --- but all your word salad proves is you certainly didn't pay attention but you sure like to type.  I wanted to point out the massive factual flaws in your presentation, but there's no point to it.  I just couldn't be a good soldier and join the chorus patting you on the back for a job well done.

[Hoodat]

If the two Republican Senators in Georgia win, we have the Senate.

@Victoria33

What makes you think either of the two Republican Senators will win considering the ongoing fraud that continues in Georgia unabated?  Seriously?  If it was so successful for them last month, why wouldn't they simply increase their efforts, especially with a Republican governor and Secretary of State letting them do it.

[skeeter]

I think there is universal sentiment from congress, to the judiciary, that any overturn of the election carried a lot more risk of nation shaking violence in their eyes than the alternative.  You know...   Conservatives are law abiding, peaceful and in their eyes docile creatures.

I’m not sure that’s an accurate assessment. But we’ll see what happens when half the nation loses faith in the way we select our leaders.

Maybe they'll/we’ll just drop out, which would please the oligarchs to no end, I’m sure. But free people don’t tend to roll over that easily.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

Want to sincerely thank you for your tireless efforts here on the forum this past year.

You deserve the Mother of all Hugs for your focus and dedication.  I am eternally grateful.

Chin up...shoulders square by dear Friend.

Thank you @DCPatriot  We won the election and lost the war.

[catfish1957]

No offense meant here, @SamHouston  --- but all your word salad proves is you certainly didn't pay attention but you sure like to type. 

[skeeter]

@Victoria33

What makes you think either of the two Republican Senators will win considering the ongoing fraud that continues in Georgia unabated?  Seriously?  If it was so successful for them last month, why wouldn't they simply increase their efforts, especially with a Republican governor and Secretary of State letting them do it.

And what is meant by ‘we’? The Republican Party scarcely represents me any more.

[catfish1957]

Trump's three appointed justices went limp on this issue.

Is anyone else thinking, did he just add 3 more "John Roberts" to SCOTUS?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow

1. The irony of the Supreme Court's latest duck is that, in the end, it may have ruined itself -- that is, if the Democrats take both Senate seats in Georgia, and Biden is sworn in as presidents,

2. Schumer has made clear his intent to destroy the Court as an independent institution.  Consequently, the Court's unwillingness to even hear significant challenges will boomerang.


7:00 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter for Android

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1337547870715699202

[corbe]

    How long will it take for them to start blaming the 'Principled Conservatives' for this CF? After all Cruz did give Trump that Heritage List to pick his Judges from (whom none voted to hear the case) in return for his endorsement in 2016.

[christian]

John Roberts, Romney, and G.W.Bush politics are back.  With so much repetition, maybe won't talk so long to figure out the obvious this time, Eh? 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow

Here’s the Supreme Court’s order, with Thomas and Alito dissenting



6:50 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter for Android

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1337545381043986437

[Right_in_Virginia]

(The Texas case dismissed on standing ... not merits)

Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law

FYI: the entire doctrine of "standing" was invented by courts this last century as a way to play preferential Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of cases they don't want responsibility for.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfbd/14305d0a07a25975a0960c3f297eddd42367.pdf

10:46 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337604758576615425

[Right_in_Virginia]

Robert Barnes Retweeted
David Chapman
@davidchapman141

With over 50% of Americans not trusting the election results, the courts are only making a martyr out of Trump.


9:46 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter for Android

https://twitter.com/davidchapman141/status/1337589505910566912

[HoustonSam]

No offense meant here, @SamHouston  --- but all your word salad proves is you certainly didn't pay attention but you sure like to type.  I wanted to point out the massive factual flaws in your presentation, but there's no point to it.  I just couldn't be a good soldier and join the chorus patting you on the back for a job well done.

@FeelNoPain kindly asked for my opinion, so I tried to provide something that made sense, and he thanked me for it; I'll acknowledge I certainly could have been more concise.  I think the courts were consistently wrong in not finding fraud, and I think SCOTUS was wrong in not hearing the case and not finding a violation of the Constitution, and that's what I said to FeelNoPain.  If you find "massive factual flaws" in that, I'm open to further enlightenment.

You're the only other person @Right_in_Virginia who has commented on it so I don't know what "chorus" you're talking about.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law

Do we really have any doubt how this election contest would have played out if it was Obama with a 6-3 Democratic majority on the Supreme Court, or as it did for Bush in 2000 with a 5-4 Republican majority on the Supreme Court?


12:06 AM · Dec 12, 2020·Twitter for Android

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337624825179717632

[Right_in_Virginia]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!


11:50 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337620892139081728

[Right_in_Virginia]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far - and purportedly lost. You can’t get “standing” before the Supreme Court, so you “intervene” with wonderful states.....

....that, after careful study and consideration, think you got “screwed”, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!


12:24 AM · Dec 12, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337629305405321216

[Smokin Joe]

I think there is universal sentiment from congress, to the judiciary, that any overturn of the election carried a lot more risk of nation shaking violence in their eyes than the alternative.  You know...   Conservatives are law abiding, peaceful and in their eyes docile creatures.

There is nothing to overturn. This was not an election, it was rendered a sham by the four states who defied their own law, and The  Supreme Cowards Of The United States  who refused to even hear the case.

So much for the ballot box...

[Smokin Joe]

Thank you @DCPatriot  We won the election and lost the war.

We haven't lost any war. If that ensues, this is just the beginning: civilized, peaceful, nonviolent, and all legal-like.

Should the now disenfranchised Americans turn to war, it will be none of those.

[Right_in_Virginia]

We haven't lost any war. If that ensues, this is just the beginning: civilized, peaceful, nonviolent, and all legal-like.

Should the now disenfranchised Americans turn to war, it will be none of those.

I like your optimism @Smokin Joe  ---

[Smokin Joe]

I like your optimism @Smokin Joe  ---

If it comes to war, and that would be very ugly, we have the capacity to win.

It would, however, involve us doing to the enemies of the Republic things which will haunt us all our days.

I haven't said much of late, because there are many things which, too lightly said, could be interpreted as seditious by the people who have undermined and committed treason against our Constitutional Republic. These enemies, foreign and domestic, are not to be taken lightly, and any action against them would have to have a level of commitment far beyond mere typing on a keyboard. That action might be reviled by those who would agree politically with us, would certainly be met with eternal derision should it fail in its true purpose of restoring the Republic, and would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of whatever those in control said the law was at the time, if they even bothered to hold court.

The words which come to mind are ..."with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

...because, ultimately, that would be what is at stake.

So rather than make rash statements, rather than wax hypothetical, I think I'll sit back more quietly, wait for further developments, plan for contingencies (what all preppers do), and consider possible options given those events which may well transpire in the future. Any wailing and gnashing of teeth is premature, as would be any drastic action.

It might be productive, however, for people to make the same considerations, keeping their own counsel (of course), and decide their own plans for contingencies.  I strongly suspect any publicly posted urges to action will be part trolling, part fishing expeditions by the various agencies looking for an example to make, and partly the ravings of hot heads who have not planned as much as emoted. (Which is why some dishes are best served like ice cream: cold).

All legal options have not yet been exhausted, nor have peaceable means.

[Gefn]

With all the talk about old movies remember Scarlett said “Tomorrow is another day”

I’m sorry I’m a little late in reading the thread.

[libertybele]

    How long will it take for them to start blaming the 'Principled Conservatives' for this CF? After all Cruz did give Trump that Heritage List to pick his Judges from (whom none voted to hear the case) in return for his endorsement in 2016.

That is what was reported and since when did Trump start listening to Cruz?

I would like to think that those 74 million or so that voted for Trump realize that we lost our Republic and there is no fighting back at the ballot box and that a new party needs to be formed.

Cruz has also stood up for Trump several times and there were times that Trump should have listened to Cruz and didn't.

The Cruz/Trump arguments needs to stop.  It wouldn't have mattered who beat Hillary -- the DEMS would have done the same thing.

Cruz/Trump are the only ones right now who together I believe can form a new party.  Whether or not they'd be willing is the question.  Both can leave the political arena and leave the headaches behind.  Trump is too old to continue to put up with this b.s. I'm afraid that they will now go after him personally and  Cruz can't lead this fight alone..

[bigheadfred]

That is what was reported and since when did Trump start listening to Cruz?

I would like to think that those 74 million or so that voted for Trump realize that we lost our Republic and there is no fighting back at the ballot box and that a new party needs to be formed.

Cruz has also stood up for Trump several times and there were times that Trump should have listened to Cruz and didn't.

The Cruz/Trump arguments needs to stop.  It wouldn't have mattered who beat Hillary -- the DEMS would have done the same thing.

Cruz/Trump are the only ones right now who together I believe can form a new party.  Whether or not they'd be willing is the question.  Both can leave the political arena and leave the headaches behind.  Trump is too old to continue to put up with this b.s. I'm afraid that they will now go after him personally and  Cruz can't lead this fight alone..

Stop the fraud now or a new party will be the same old thing.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The single silver lining I see with the rejection of this lawsuit is that Scotus has not confirmed this election.

It simply said one state cannot dictate the electoral process of another state as it lacks standing.

There would certainly be more difficulty in attaining the remaining lawsuits out there if Scotus had taken this case on and rejected the claims after weighing the evidence.