Tag: election

I believe Sidney Powell.

And I believe in Sidney Powell.

And I don’t think any of us can thank her enough for all of her efforts.

Who is Sidney Powell you might ask, and what is it she is saying that I believe?

Sidney Powell is an attorney and a former federal prosecutor

After graduating from law school in 1978, Powell began her career as an assistant United States attorney in the Western District of Texas.

She ceased working as a prosecutor in 1988 and established her own firm in 1993. She has acted in appellate matters as a prosecutor and defense counsel.

In 2019, she stepped in and defended retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, ultimately getting the DOJ to drop its case against him. Powell was castigated by the fake news, and called a conspiracy theorist, for claiming Flynn was framed by a covert “deep state” operation, which it was proven he was.

In 2020, Powell joined the legal team of then-President Donald Trump in an attempt to show the wide-spread election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

There’s Sidney’s resume.

She is definitely not someone to be taken lightly. 

But, again, she is being called a conspiracy theorist, as we hear within a week of the election that William Barr is saying that “the Justice Department and the FBI have found no evidence of widespread fraud in this election.”

We also heard “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. Also, that “The Department’s Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees found ‘no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

And lastly, “America, we have confidence in the security of your vote, you should, too,” Chris Krebs, Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said in a tweet.

So, who’s right…, Sidney Powell of this collection of “swamp donkeys?”

Let’s see what she has to say about the 2020 election.

Here is the interview with Chad Nesbitt, for Skyline News, from inauguration day, 2021.

Chad started off by introducing Sidney, then asked her what she has been doing regarding the 2020 election.

Sidney said they were in the process of getting their website, defendingtherepublic.org up and running.

She continued by saying, “Posted on it are all of the pleadings we’ve filed…, challenging on constitutional and factual grounds, the results of the election, including hundreds of pages of documents and affidavits and other evidence that shows that the election was indeed fraudulent, and that President Trump won. He had about 80 million votes and Biden had much less than that, aside from the fact that hundreds of thousands of Biden votes were fraudulent from the get go.”

“There were hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, there were flipped votes by algorithms [preprogrammed instructions to be applied by the computer] run in the machines, and not just the ones from Dominion [a voting machine manufacturer used by a number of states], but also from others it seems.  We’re still collecting evidence on all of that, and even though we’ve had to drop at least two of our lawsuits that were pending in front of The Supreme Court because the court did not act in sufficient time to keep them viable, they became what’s called ‘mute’ in legal parlance, meaning the relief we requested was no longer viable, because the electors had already been seated and now Biden has already been inaugurated.”

So, none of her cases were dropped on their merits, only on technicalities.

“We are still looking at other options for litigation because there are substantial issues that still need to be raised, and my principle has always been that the American people are entitled to the truth, no matter which way it falls. And given the huge fight that has been mounted against getting at the truth, that alone tells me we’re on the right track and over the target.”

Agreed.  The old saying is “You know when you’re over the target when you start taking flack,” referring to bombing runs in WWII.

Nesbitt then asked, “Well, what’s the matter with these people?  What’s the matter with these courts? Why won’t they hear these cases that you guys have? A lot of people just don’t understand that. What do you think their problem is?”

Sidney responded, “I don’t understand it either.  I’ve seen our court system deteriorate for the last twenty years. I self-published a book back in 2014, a book called ‘Licensed to Lie,’ exposing corruption in the Department of Justice, and it’s only getting worse since then, and that was based on conduct I saw beginning in the year 2001.”

“Our system has done nothing but deteriorate, and when the republicans have had power, they’ve done nothing to clean it up.  It’s only gotten worse.”

And we have all seen evidence of that in recent years.

Nesbitt, “That’s right. Exactly. I couldn’t agree more. And it’s just amazing to me to see what they are doing on a regular basis. It amazes me that they have blocked you on social media.  I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire lifetime…What do you say about that, blocking you on social media like they have?”

Sidney Powell, “Well, it’s very concerning. It’s one of their tactics to isolate and shutdown opposition speech, when we actually represent the majority of the country, because we know that President Trump won the election.  So, the only tactics they have are to lie, to suppress speech, and otherwise bullying and intimidation, and to use power to consolidate the power they already have.  And I think we’re going to see that in spades…, and we’ve already seen that today.”

“It started with all of the executive orders that put us back in the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Accord, they’re not going to build any more walls, they’re going to let in, I mean, there are more caravans of illegal aliens coming up, they’re going to legalize 11 million people who are not supposed to be here.  They want them counted for purposes of representation which is totally unconstitutional.  They’re effectively abolishing The Constitution, and they’ve been doing it for the last 15 years.  It’s been a slow erosion.  It is simply going to gain speed at a pace we can’t even comprehend.”

Nesbitt, “Eighty million of us, or more, voted for Donald Trump, and I guarantee you…, we were all thinking that Trump had something up his sleeve, right here at the very end, and I see a lot of people, some of the people that were in his office, and a lot of them, in my opinion, weren’t telling Donald Trump the truth about what was going on out here, in regards to the legalities, and about how things could be done in court to have avoided all of this stuff, and giving the election to the rightful person, who was Donald Trump.  What do you think?”

Sidney answers by saying, “I think the people around him for his entire term have tried to control him by controlling the flow of information that he got, and the people he could talk to.  There was a massive effort throughout his term to tamp down and limit what he could do by all means possible, predominantly by deep state members, actors, whatever you want to call it.  A lot of former Bush people, and then some who were even more liberal than that.”

Lastly, Nesbitt asked, “What can we do as voters out here? I mean we feel like we’ve just been robbed of this election, and in elections going forward…We’re concerned about them…We’re concerned that our vote won’t count because they’re going to rig it again.  What can we do as voters to put a stop to this?”

That’s the million dollar question!

Sidney responds, “There’s every reason to be concerned about that.  What reason would anyone have to ever trust the voting system again?  So, a number of state legislatures, including Arizona now, has agreed to allow us access to the Maricopa County voting records, including the original ballots.  And people need to insist on this everywhere, even if you think your election was totally valid.  Federal law requires everybody to keep all federal voting records for 22 months for the very purpose of allowing a full and complete audit of the vote. I guarantee you that other votes were manipulated also.  There are governor races that the conservative should have won.  There are local races, in fact in [one] Michigan [county], we learned that they illegally changed the vote, allowing a marijuana store in a town, just by one vote to make sure it came in, and this is not what the people voted for.  So, it’s things that are that small, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, that were altered by criminal conduct in changing the vote.  We all need to work immediately, get organized and productive in our efforts to hold our local officials accountable, and make them audit the votes that were entered this time, then go to a different system of voting. We’ve got to revert to the paper ballots. The old machines where you go in and flip the levers and you pull the handle to register your vote and the card is punched, or whatever, and the machine, that’s not computerized, but simply registers the tally or something…, but we’ve got to find a system that’s more trustworthy, because they pulled out all the stops this year in every manner and means of cheating ever known to man and then some.”    

So, it seems the answer to the million dollar question is, we need o change the system back to make it fair again.  The problem is the democrats like it just like it has become…, unaccountable and manipulatable…, and they’re the ones calling the shots right now.

So, the bottom line is our democracy is in big trouble, and there doesn’t appear to be any kind of remedy in sight.

God help us all.

And God help Sidney Powell.  It seems like she is the only one out there fighting for the truth regarding the 2020 election.

Thank you, Sidney.  You are a patriot and a great American.      

You can support Sidney Powell and the cause by going to defendingtherepublic.org or by going to her own website at sidneypowell.com.      

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.

0

“Illegitimate” Joe Biden?

When over 70 million Americans feel you’re illegitimate, you are, by definition, illegitimate.

Is that how you want to be thought of, Joe?

Obviously, the answer, based on his actions so far, is that he doesn’t care what you think of him, as long as he gets to be president.

I believe most of those 70 million are like me and the people I know, who would have no problem with a President Biden, if we knew he had won the election fair and square.

We can stand to lose, but we can’t stand being cheated.

If President-elect Biden really wanted what was best for the country, and really wanted to an American hero…, he would say something along these lines:

“Dear fellow Americans,

I understand that many of you have concerns regarding the integrity of the recent presidential election.

I believe those concerns are unfounded, but in an effort to restore the faith in our election process and establish a sense of unity amongst the American people, I promise to establish a commission on day one of my presidency, that will look into any possible election fraud, or a disregard for election laws, that may have occurred during the 2020 election.

If it is determined that there were enough issues and irregularities to put my winning of the election in doubt, I will insist that steps be taken to cure these issues, up to and including a possible re-vote in those states in question.  

I am proud to represent all of the American people as your president, but I do not want this dark cloud hanging over my presidency either, nor the future elections in 2022 and 2024.

It is my hope that this action will help to restore faith in myself and in our government.

May God continue to bless us all and continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.”

If President-elect Biden were to do this, I believe he would earn the respect of a vast majority of the American people, and establish himself immediately as one of our greatest presidents.

What do you think?

I’d really love to hear everyone’s opinion on this.

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.

4

They just don’t get it!

And by “they” I mean our wonderful politicians and the ever-diligent news media.

I hate to be so cynical, but how can anyone not be?

As I listened to the media interviewing their usual list of commentators and numerous congresspeople and senators, to get their reactions regarding the events of the day (the capitol protests), I was amazed that none of them even knew the right question to ask.

As they all categorically condemned any sort of violence as a solution…, and I’m assuming they all know our country was born out of a revolution.

They responded to questions like:

“How could the capitol building, “the peoples” building (That’s a good one!), have been breached so quickly and easily?

“How could the DC police not have been prepared, knowing that such a big crowd was expected?”

THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED IS, “WHY DID ALL OF THESE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO COME TO WASHINGTON AND PROTEST FROM ALL ACROSS OUR COUNTRY?”

Well, I’ll tell you why…,

BECAUSE THEY’RE ALL TIRED OF HAVING TO PUT UP WITH ALL OF THE LIBERAL AND ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN BS, WHILE HAVING NO RECOURSE NOW, SINCE THE ELECTION PROCESS HAS APPARENTLY BEEN COMPROMISED!   

THAT’S WHY!

All of these prima donnas in Washington don’t seem to understand that the very cornerstone of our republic is the belief that we allow ourselves to be governed by people who were freely and fairly elected.

If that cornerstone is allowed to be, or intentionally, undermined, we have a serious, serious, problem…, and we are on the verge of losing our country.

THAT’S WHY WE SAW THE CAPITOL PROTESTS!

Americans don’t respond well when we’re told to just shut-up and bend over.  

These political charlatans in Washington can look the other way all they want, and pretend election fraud didn’t happen…, but most of us out here are choosing to believe our own lying eyes and our own common sense.    

I feel confident in saying that, if all of the election concerns are not addressed quickly and effectively, the capitol protest will just be the first of many protests.   

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.

0

I thought protests were good?

Even “protests” that included vandalism, looting, burning, and attacking police officers.

Repeatedly, we were told how these people must be allowed to protest, and if we disagreed we were racist and unamerican. 

While protesters occupied the capitol today, I heard commentators wonder where republicans were who were denouncing this behavior?

Really?

Excuse me, but while we watched cities burn this summer, for months and months, did we hear any democrats talk out against their behavior?

And these people were “protesting” the unfortunate death of an individual in police custody.

The capitol protesters are protesting the unconstitutional election practices, and election fraud in some of the states, and the potential death of democracy in our country, if we choose to look the other way and allow a stealing of an election to happen.  

While someone’s death is a sad thing, the death of our country would seem much more protest worthy.

Just sayin’.

Joe Biden came out today saying how “we are so much better than this,” and how “this behavior must end immediately.”

Oh…, well, hello Joe. 

You didn’t say a word for months while BLM and ANTIFA were allowed to do whatever they wanted to in cities across our country. 

I guess all protests are not created equal, huh?

When conservatives protest, that needs to be squashed immediately, right?

We also heard a woman was shot in the capitol by security police there. 

I’ll be interested to hear how heavily armed she was.

These are just my initial thoughts.

Stay tuned for more tomorrow as we learn more.

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.

4

A “rabbit hole?”

“Rabbit hole” appears to be the latest liberal buzzword(s).

If you listen to any democrat politician or the mainstream talk about questions surrounding possible election fraud, the term “rabbit hole” will undoubtedly surface before too long.

It seems they all got the memo.

So, what are they referring to? 

From Yourdictionary.com, “Something that is intricate or convoluted like a labyrinth and often has no outlet or resolution.  A situation regarded as surreal, bewildering, convoluted, etc.”

From Macmillandictionary.com, “From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a famous children’s story by Lewis Carroll in which a girl called Alice falls down a rabbit hole into a strange dreamlike world.”

So, when anyone dares to question the integrity of the 2020 election, in any way, we are deemed to be “going down a rabbit hole.”

This of course is just the democrats’ way of deflecting any concerns about the election, without having to come up with any kind of response to the obvious and documented irregularities.

A true use of the term “going down a rabbit hole” could best be applied when referring to the democrats’ claims of “Russian collusion” or their pursuit of the impeachment of President Trump. These were true trips into a “surreal,” or a “strange dreamlike world.”   

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.

1

The “fix” was obviously in.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court tossed out President Trump’s election lawsuit on everything BUT the merits of the case.

According to the Associated Press, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending [President] Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.”

“The President sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic [and most heavily populated] counties. In a 4-3 ruling, Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative writing for the majority, said the Trump campaign was ‘not entitled to the relief it seeks.’”

Okay…, first of all…, why is it important to note that Justice Hagedorn is supposedly a “conservative?”  Is that supposed to lend some credence to his opinion?

I guess so. 

“Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he waited too long to raise his complaints.”

‘“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,’ Hagedorn wrote.”

He seems to assume everyone reading his ruling is familiar with American football, and the National Football League. 

Actually, I think that is quite culturalist and even misogynistic.

But that’s okay, as long as it’s a ruling against President Trump and conservatives.    

‘“The challenges raised by the [President’s] Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.’”

As I have stated in earlier blogs, is it ever too late for justice to be served?

And you shouldn’t be looking at any “rulebook” adopted by anyone else other that the state’s legislature, which is solely given the rights to create the laws governing a state’s elections by The United States Constitution. 

“[President] Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed ‘indefinitely confined’ status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.”

Please note that there is nothing in Wisconsin’s election laws, established by the legislature, allowing for any of this.

“The court ruled that [President] Trump’s challenge to voters who were indefinitely confined was without merit and that the other claims came too late.”

“Liberal justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, who sided with Hagedorn, wrote separately to emphasize that there was no evidence of fraud in Wisconsin’s election.”

‘“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,’ Dallet and Karofksy said. ‘No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.’”

Even though these two wrote separately from Hagedorn, they sure seem to be writing from the same “playbook,” if you want to use football terminology.

“Karofsky blasted [President] Trump’s case during Saturday’s hearing, saying it ‘smacks of racism’ and was ‘un-American.’ Conservative justices voiced some concerns about how certain ballots were cast, while also questioning whether they could or should disqualify votes only in two counties.”

“Smacks of racism?!”

“Un-American?!

Please, Justice Karofsky, we don’t need an obviously biased and disingenuous lecture from you on top of your misguided and partisan decision regarding this case. 

Karofsky is the larger pictured justice on the right.

“Biden [supposedly] won Wisconsin by about 20,600 votes, a margin of 0.6% that withstood a Trump-requested recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the two with the most Democratic votes. Trump did not challenge any ballots cast in the counties he won.”

Oh really?!

That’s odd.

Why would he challenge the counties he won?

And a recount of the same illegal ballots is, of course, just going to produce the same results.

Yes, folks, the “fix” was obviously in.

It’s a real shame that many of these state supreme courts are now making their judgements based on politics rather than the law.

In many cases, our judicial branch of government has “sold its soul” to the politically corrupt neo-fascist manipulators in our country.   

“Justice” has now become what some liberal perceives it to be, or wants it to be, and not what it actually should be.  

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.

0

UPDATE#5: Remember the Alamo! (Monday, 12/14/20).

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!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

0

UPDATE#4: Remember the Alamo! (Friday, 12/11/20).

Well, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands now.

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!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

0

UPDATE#3: Remember the Alamo! (Friday, 12/11/20).

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!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

0

UPDATE#2: Remember the Alamo! (12/10/20).

Let’s get this party started!

It looks like everyone wants to get in on the fun now.

According to the CBSDFW.com Staff (The Dallas/Fort Worth CBS local affiliate), “Eighteen states — now including Arizona — have joined a Texas lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. That lawsuit was filed directly with the United States Supreme Court on Monday, Dec. 7.”

Eighteen states!!!

That’s over a third of the United States!

“The suit asks the court to order the ‘defendant states’ legislatures to displace ‘tainted’ election results in those states and choose their own slate of electors.”

“Paxton sued battleground states on behalf of the state of Texas saying the ‘defendant states’ made unconstitutional changes to their laws before the 2020 election.”

“He said those states tainted the integrity of the vote for Texas and all states.”

“An amicus brief (amicus curiae) or ‘friend of the court’ brief was filed with the high court earlier Wednesday. The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia have all signed on to the brief that backs the Texas suit.”

“Arizona was the latest state to file an amicus brief on Wednesday bringing the total to 18 states.”

Thank you, thank you, thank you, to all of these other states which have chosen to stand up for justice and stand up for America.

“According to the American Bar Association, ‘Friend of the court’ or amicus curiae briefs are often filed in appellate cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, as well as intermediate courts of appeal. And there is considerable evidence that amicus briefs have influence.”

“On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant states to reply by 3 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 10.”

‘“It’s not unusual,’ SMU [Southern Methodist University] Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter told CBS 11. ‘I don’t think it indicates anything very important… I think the court will act quickly on Thursday.’”

‘“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,’ said Paxton. ‘Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.’”

‘“Ken Paxton is asking that Republican state legislatures in four states be allowed to displace the will of the voters in those States and choose their own slate of electors, presumably to hand the election to Donald Trump in January,’ said [Professor] Carpenter. ‘The Supreme Court is not going to allow that to happen.’”

Nice try professor!

“Displace the will of the voters?!!!

You mean “displace the will” of the cheaters?

That’s the whole point here, Professor!  Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of fraudulent and illegal votes in these 4 defendant states displaces the actual will of legal voters, who submitted legal ballots in the 4 defendant states and every other state in the union.

Excuse me…, but you are such a “tool” and such a “useful idiot,” Professor Carpenter.

I have also heard that President Trump and his legal team have officially signed on to the lawsuit, and that they have asked Senator Ted Cruz of Texas to represent them all and plead the case in the Supreme Court.

Today may end up being a VERY big day in the history of United States and a big day for the future of these United States.

I’ll 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.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑