The “defendant states’” responses are in. Now it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if Texas’ lawsuit is even worth consideration.
Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News report that, “Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan filed briefs Thursday in response to the Texas case seeking to bar their presidential electors from voting.”
“In briefs submitted with the Supreme Court on Thursday, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin slammed the Texas lawsuit to prevent those four states from casting their electoral votes as a ‘meritless’ effort to ‘decimate the electorate of the United States.’”
Excuse me Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but the Texas lawsuit is hardly “meritless.”
Taken from the filed Texas motion and supporting documentation:
“Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.”
“The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000^4). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a. 11.”
So, expert mathematical analysis is saying that Joe Biden winning the vote in these four states, given the circumstances, was basically impossible.
We have to listen to the “experts” after all, don’t we?
We have to follow the Science, don’t we?
“The response briefs were filed just ahead of a 3 p.m. deadline the Supreme Court previously gave the states to respond to the Texas suit.”
“It [the Texas lawsuit] aims to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in disputes between states, bypassing lower federal courts, which have uniformly ruled against other election-related litigation by President Trump and his allies.”
Bypassing the lower federal courts, in this case, was key. The lower courts, in regards to this case, would most certainly dismiss it out of hand, either because the judge had a liberal bias, or the judge did not want to assume the responsibility for ruling in favor of Texas.
“The Texas suit gained the backing of 17 other states Wednesday when, led by Missouri, they filed a brief endorsing the Paxton’s case. Then on Thursday, Missouri and five other states filed another brief with the Supreme Court this time asking to be allowed to join Texas as litigants in the case.”
“But despite the widespread support from red-state attorneys general for Texas’ case, attorneys general Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin attacked the suit in their responses as ‘meritless’ and ‘nakedly political.’”
‘“Texas waited until now to seek an injunction to nullify Pennsylvania’s election results because all of the other political and litigation machinations of Petitioner’s preferred presidential candidate have failed,’ the Pennsylvania brief, led by Attorney General Josh Shaprio, states.”
What does this, if even true, have to do with the merits of Texas’ lawsuit?
‘“The Trump campaign began with a series of meritless litigations. When that failed, it turned to state legislatures to overturn the clear election results,’ Pennsylvania continued. ‘Upon that failure, Texas now turns to this Court to overturn the election results of more than 10% of the country. Texas literally seeks to decimate the electorate of the United States.’”
Nooo…, Texas now turns to the Court to stop the fraudulent election results from 10% of the country decimating the rights of the other 90% of the country!
‘“Texas asserts that this Court’s intervention is necessary to ensure faith in the election. But it is hard to imagine what could possibly undermine faith in democracy more than this Court permitting one state to enlist the Court in its attempt to overturn the election results in other states,’ the Wisconsin brief says. ‘Merely hearing this case—regardless of the outcome—would generate confusion, lend legitimacy to claims judges across the country have found meritless, and amplify the uncertainty and distrust these false claims have generated.’”
“Michigan, led by Attorney General Dana Nessell, also laid out a variety of factors that it believes weigh heavily against the Texas case.”
‘“The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true,’ the Michigan brief says.”
Now there you go lying again, Ms. Nessell.
I know…, it just comes with the job, and with being a democrat.
“The crux of the arguments from Texas and the states that support it is that the Constitution gives only state legislatures the power to set rules regarding presidential elections. Therefore, when the executive and judicial branches in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia changed how their elections would work this year in light of the coronavirus pandemic, their elections became invalid.”
‘“When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the ‘Legislature thereof’ in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States,’ the Wednesday brief filed by Missouri and 16 other states says.”
Now, what’s so hard to understand about that, and how can that thinking even be argued with?
Regardless, the democrats are arguing against it.
“But most legal experts agree that for many procedural reasons the Texas case is almost certain to fail, and that their merits argument is fatally flawed too.”
‘“To begin with, the imagined “rule” is universally ignored since states have in fact allowed their governors, judiciaries, or both to make rulings and determinations affecting the manner in which presidential elections are held and electors thus chosen,’ Walter Olson of the libertarian Cato Institute told Fox News.”
This “imagined rule” you refer to, Mr. Olsen, is a little thing called The Constitution of the United States!
And whether or not states have chosen to ignore The Constitution in the past, has no bearing on whether or not their current election processes are legal or not.
It’s really a childish excuse.
“We’ve established illegal voting processes before, so…”
“Harvard law professor [Okay…, I can already see where this is going!] and former Supreme Court clerk to late Justice Antonin Scalia, Lawrence Lessig, meanwhile, said that the motivations for the Texas case are purely political.”
See, I told you!
‘“This is political posturing through litigation. Not one of those attorneys general believes they are entitled to win,’ he told Fox News. ‘As lawyers, that should stop them from signing onto such an action. But they are acting as politicians, not lawyers here — to the detriment of the rule of law.’”
I really can’t believe you were able to get that statement out, Mr. Lessig, without choking on your own words!
People “acting as politicians,” and the “detriment of the rule of law?!”
Along with all of the additional states supporting the Texas lawsuit, The President has signed on in support of it, as have 106 House members who filed a brief with the Supreme Court as well.
It is my belief that, considering all of the possible ramifications, this decision by The Supreme Court will go down in history as the most important decision it has ever made.
I’ll continue to keep you posted.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Thank you, MrEricksonRules.