In my community, people still believe that each person’s individual vote is a sacred right.
When I go to vote, in person, I’m asked to present my photo ID. My name and address is then checked against our voter rolls.
I’m issued a voter number and a ballot.
I fill out my ballot and present it to an election official there and they then scan it through the voting machine.
At this point I hope my vote is registered properly, and not as .75 of a vote, or switched entirely.
I doubt my vote here has been manipulated, as I live in a small community, not really worth messing with, although my vote has already, basically, been discounted by those (the democrats) who would undermine our election.
And there are thousands of communities just like mine across our country.
In other places, we see mail-in ballots arriving days after the election, being back dated, and then being counted.
We see many of these mail-in ballots having no identification on them at all, as to who cast this vote.
We see mismatched signatures and imaginary birth dates.
We have votes being cast by dead people, people who aren’t even legal citizens, and by people who don’t live in the area they are voting.
We see “election officials” “correcting” or “fixing” ballots as they see fit, and scanning selected ballots over and over again.
Election monitors being blocked from being able to effectively monitor the vote, or election monitors being deceived to allow unmonitored ballot processing.
And we see people voting by mail-in ballot and then again voting again in person.
The list of fraudulent voting activity witnessed during this last election, by people submitting signed affidavits, seems to go on and on.
It’s a question of basic election integrity.
This is why people like me, and there are millions of us, feel that we have been robbed, not of our vote, but of the meaningfulness and actual value of our vote.
The Supreme Court really needed to consider and hear the Texas lawsuit, which charged the states allowing all of this election fraud to occur, and yes, causing damages to the rest of us.
These states, without question, “damaged” our entire election process and the value of each of our votes.
I’m sure if this Supreme Court would have been presented with the case of slavery, or slave owner rights, they would have declined to hear it as well.
I know exactly what happened with our Supreme Court regarding the Texas lawsuit; they ruled based on the technicality of “the laws,” although they never really questioned “the law…,” the states’ adherence to their own laws and The Constitution…, and they failed to do what was right.
This was a failure, and a level of corruption, that our country may never recover from.
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!
Late Friday night, The United States Supreme Court elected to not even hear the Texas election lawsuit.
Even though the lawsuit was backed by The President, 18 states, and over 100 members of Congress, The United States Supreme Court felt this would be a waste of their time to even hear the arguments is the case.
I was personally shocked by their decision which, I believe, will go down in history as one of he most shameful decisions ever rendered by a United States Supreme Court.
CBS News reports that, “In a tweet overnight, Mr. [President] Trump said, ‘The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!’ after the court’s 7-2 ruling rejected a push from Texas to block electors in four battleground states from voting in the Electoral College.”
For the record…,
The seven justices who rejected the case are:
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice,
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice.
The two justices who felt the case was worth hearing are:
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.
None of the three Justices appointed by President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, nor Amy Coney Barrett, opted to defend The President.
I’m sure the liberal justices would have acted the same way if this had been a challenge supporting former President Obama.
NOT!
“The decision effectively ends The President’s five-week effort to legally challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.”
“In rejecting the lawsuit, the court wrote that ‘Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.’”
So, The Supreme Court of The United States is saying that Texas, and all of the other states that joined in the lawsuit, somehow has no interest if other states don’t follow Constitutional law, allow their election to be compromised by cheating, and thus allow an illegitimate winner to be installed as President of the United States?
Really?
“The four states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin — all went to Mr. Biden.”
“The lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the court to invalidate the four key states’ votes, but judges across the country have repeatedly tossed out those claims due to a lack of evidence.”
“Lack of evidence?!”
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, if any of these courts would care to look at it.
“Over 100 House Republicans filed a brief in support of Paxton’s suit claiming the election was riddled with allegations of fraud and irregularities.”
“Mr. [President] Trump had been counting on a Supreme Court victory. Three of the seven justices who rejected the case were Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett — all his own appointees.”
Yes…, and shame on all of you.
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
“Earlier in the week, the president struck an optimistic tone at a White House Hanukkah party.”
“In a video posted to Twitter, he said: ‘I understand a lot of congressmen and women have joined in, a lot of people are joining in because they can’t allow this to happen.’”
‘“You can’t have a country where somebody loses an election and becomes president,’ Mr. Trump continued.”
The Supreme Court obviously doesn’t feel there is a problem with that.
“Paxton released a statement calling the court’s decision ‘unfortunate,’ asserting he ‘will continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.’”
“Unfortunate” is the very, very, very least that can be said to describe this turn of events.
“The President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani joined ‘Hannity’ on Fox News Friday evening, and said the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong.”
‘“The Supreme Court has made a terrible, terrible mistake in not getting this resolved in a fair, in a decent and in an equitable way,’ Giuliani said. ‘Because it’s gonna leave a real black mark with regard to this election throughout our entire history.’”
Well said, Rudy, and I absolutely agree.
Additionally, according to National Public Radio (NPR), “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.”
“The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied ‘for lack of standing.’”
“Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence.”
Again, since when aren’t signed affidavits evidence?
“But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.”
I believe Texas demonstrated quite clearly how it believed it had been injured.
According to the Morris Bart, LLC Law firm website, regarding “standing to sue,” “When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as ‘locus standi,’ in other words, ‘standing to sue.’ Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.”
“What does it mean to have ‘standing’ in court? In layman’s terms, legal standing to sue is about who has the right to bring an action in court, not about the issues or facts of the actual case. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts can only hear actual ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’ so standing law helps enforce this requirement by requiring that the party filing sue suffer an injury caused by the other party that can actually be addressed by the court.”
“It’s important to note that because standing law is established by the US Constitution, these requirements only apply to federal court lawsuits. For state standing requirements, you would look to state law.”
“What are the three elements of standing to sue?”
“In the legal world, ‘element’ is another word for a factor that the party must prove as part of a broader legal concept. In terms of standing, a party must prove three elements.”
“INJURY IN FACT means that a person has suffered an actual injury. This can be a physical injury or economic loss, the two most common types of injuries. However, this element can also include harm that is caused to conservation, aesthetic, or recreational interests as well. Importantly, in most cases, the injury must already have occurred, rather than being something hypothetical that might happen in the future.”
“CAUSATION means that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the person or party that is being sued. In other words, the party bringing the lawsuit needs to show that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, they would not have been injured. If the plaintiff cannot prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, they will not be able to prove that they have standing to bring the lawsuit.”
“Finally, REDRESSABILITY means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines that would have a deterrent effect. It’s important to remember that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States, and courts can only order parties to take certain actions, so there is a limit on whether a court’s order can “redress” the injury the plaintiff has suffered.”
“When interpreting these standards, courts have also added other rules, often called ‘prudential standing,’ to help them consistently apply standing law. These rules include limits on when taxpayers can sue for grievances that affect the general public, and the requirement that the injury be within the ‘zone of interest’ a statute is intended to cover, among many others.”
“Why do courts require standing for a lawsuit to proceed? At the most basic level, courts require standing because the Constitution requires them to enforce the law. However, there are many policy reasons that courts require legal standing. Because of the requirement that federal courts only hear actual ‘cases or controversies,’ these requirements prevent courts from litigating abstract political questions that have public significance, but have not actually yet harmed anyone. This means that courts can use their time and efforts only on those cases where they can have an actual impact.”
This is why we get jokes like:
What do you call a busload of lawyers driving over a cliff?
A good start.
In my opinion, these justices were just looking for an excuse to not get involved.
When over 75 million voters feel like they’ve been “injured,” I’d say that is something worth addressing.
Our country was looking to them to help pull us out of the fire, and they just turned their backs on law-abiding American citizens, and our country in general.
Thanks for nothing Supreme Court.
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!
The only question left is: Is The Supreme Court going to sit back and allow the democrats to steal this election or not?
According to Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News, “Texas on Friday morning filed a ‘reply brief’ with the Supreme Court as it asks the tribunal to hear its lawsuit that aims to essentially nullify the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin — putting the ball in the justices’ court to issue an order in the case.”
“The ‘briefing stage’ of Supreme Court litigation consists of the first party, in this instance, Texas, asking the court to hear the case. Then opposition briefs are filed by those on the other side of the case. Then the first party is allowed to file a ‘reply brief,’ which Texas did Friday morning.”
‘“Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief,’ the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.”
“Texas continues: ‘An injunction should be issued because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.’”
“The justices now could simply issue an order saying that they refuse to hear the case. They could also agree to hear the case and promptly dismiss it or rule in favor of Texas. The justices could also request oral arguments before ruling.”
“The crux of the Texas case is the argument that the four states it is suing — all four of which swung for President-elect Joe Biden — unconstitutionally changed their election statutes in their judiciaries or executive branches, when only the legislature is allowed to make election law. The reply brief Friday says that the four states failed to adequately dispute their point that this makes their entire elections invalid.”
‘“Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes,’ the Texas brief says. ‘Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.’”
“Texas’ Friday brief says that it not asking the Supreme Court to decide or overturn the results of the presidential election, but right a constitutional wrong.”
‘“Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters,’ Texas’ brief says.”
“It continues: ‘Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step.’”
How can the Supreme Court not act in this case?
‘“The timing is extremely late and the justices have been reluctant to resolve election disputes too close to an election, much less after a presidential election has been conducted and votes certified in the states at issue,’ [University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl] Tobias told Fox News.”
“Late?”
Is that all you’ve got?
“Late?”
“Late” regarding what?
Is it ever too late to request that justice be served?
They just finally completed counting votes not too long ago!
And it seems like they keep finding more ballots to count all the time!
“There is no specific time limit for the justices to issue an order in the case, though some action is likely to come before Monday [12/14/2020], which is when presidential electors across the country will assemble in their state capitals to cast their electoral votes for president.”
Again, 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.
We’ll now see if the five conservative judges on the Supreme Court have the courage to do the right thing. I already know how the liberal judges are going to vote.
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!
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?
Just sayin’.
“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.”
So, what?
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.”
Bingo!
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?!”
Seriously?
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!
More states are joining Texas in the fight against the 2020 election fraud.
According to Edmund DeMarche of Fox News, “Missouri joins ‘fight’ alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court.”
“Eric Schmitt, the attorney general from Missouri, announced on Twitter late Tuesday that his state is ‘in the fight’ after Texas announced its election challenge that would invalidate the 62 Electoral College votes from four battleground states and award President Trump with a second term.”
Bam!
Now that’s what I’m talking about!
‘“Election integrity is central to our republic,’ Schmitt tweeted. “And I will defend it at every turn. As I have in other cases—I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today. Missouri is in the fight.’”
‘“If other states don’t follow the Constitution and if their state legislature isn’t responsible for overseeing their elections … it affects my state,’ Ken Paxton, the attorney general from Texas said. ‘Our job is to make sure the Constitution is followed and that every vote counts. And in this case, I’m not sure every vote was counted. Not in the right way.’”
Oh, I’m very sure the votes in these swing states were not counted in the right way.
Attorneys general from Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas and other states have reportedly announced their support of the lawsuit as well.
KATC News, an ABC affiliate covering Louisiana, reported that, “Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued a statement on Tuesday supporting the complaint filed by the State of Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding 2020 presidential election.”
“According to a release from the attorney general’s office, Landry said: ‘Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections. Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution.’”
Amen.
‘“Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.’”
Amen again.
‘“The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 4, states plainly: ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …’”
‘“The power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the State Legislatures in each state. In states like Pennsylvania, the judicial branch attempted to seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules.’”
‘“These actions appear to be unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to take this action, it is similarly unconstitutional for other states to have done the same.’”
‘“Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules.’”
Stay tuned. I’ll keep you posted on any further updates regarding this election lawsuit.
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!
Mr. Erickson Rules! 