PENNSYLVANIA Files In Support of Texas in SCOTUS

[justoffal]

At first glance I was unimpressed with the filings because they all came from states that Trump won....but THIS! This is something very different and very significant folks. Add that to the growing number of witnesses coming out of the woodwork now and you have a Real headache brewing for Roberts who you know is going to try like hell to sweep this under the carpet.

Pennsylvania House Leaders File Brief to Support Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania

www.theepochtimes.com

Don't look for this headline in the MSM......you'll find it in an actual news paper.

JO

so the state that texas is suing is joining in the lawsuit to sue themselves???

Yes......this is very significant...

JO

 

[Ben Thomson]

KAMALA STILL HAS NOT OFFICIALLY GIVEN UP HER SENATE SEAT....WHAT DOES SHE KNOW?

At first glance I was unimpressed with the filings because they all came from states that Trump won....but THIS! This is something very different and very significant folks. Add that to the growing number of witnesses coming out of the woodwork now and you have a Real headache brewing for Roberts who you know is going to try like hell to sweep this under the carpet.

Pennsylvania House Leaders File Brief to Support Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania

www.theepochtimes.com

Don't look for this headline in the MSM......you'll find it in an actual news paper.

BANG! This is the kind of language that Judges are likely to hear.... This will get a 5 to 4 in favor of I believe with the three progressives rubber stamping the Dems and Roberts ducking for cover behind PC cowardice.

Pennsylvania’s House speaker and majority leader on Thursday filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court against the state of Pennsylvania and in favor of Texas’s lawsuit against the commonwealth and three other states.

A brief (pdf) filed by Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, both Republicans, requests that the Supreme Court “carefully consider the procedural issues and questions raised by the Plaintiff concerning the administration of the 2020 General Election in Pennsylvania.”

“The unimpeachability of our elections requires clear procedures of administration so that everyone gets a fair shake. Unfortunately, outside actors have so markedly twisted and gerrymandered the Commonwealth’s Election Code to the point that amici find it unrecognizable from the laws that they enacted,” they wrote, adding that the state of Texas “raised important questions about how this procedural malfeasance affected the 2020 General Election.”

In the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced changes to election laws, deeming them unconstitutional. The suit also contends that by doing so, those states treated voters unequally and created significant voting irregularities by rescinding certain ballot-integrity measures.

Filed on Monday night, the lawsuit is requesting the Supreme Court to declare the four states carried out their respective elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“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,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the legal petition.

Cutler and Benninghoff, in support of Paxton’s lawsuit, further stipulated that “under the pretextual guise of COVID-19, special interests began attempting to use Pennsylvania courts” to carry out “election procedures of their own choosing,” citing mail-in ballot extensions implemented by Kathy Boockvar, the Pennsylvania secretary of state.


JO

Yawn...

 

[ReinyDays]

Jim knows he's spreading fake news.
It's how he copes with the loss.

I'm not so sure about that ... honest folks don't spend much time in court rooms ... most who post here know very little of the workings of the court system ... that's why their opinions are so strong ...

 

[ReinyDays]

so the state that texas is suing is joining in the lawsuit to sue themselves???

No ... the PA attorney general filed the response to the TX lawsuit ... the PA House requested amici status ... "friend of the court" ... the House isn't a party to the case ...

 

[Toro]

rofl

There’s going to be mass alt-right suicide on Jan 20

 

[Sunsettommy]

Just a couple crank loser Republican reps from Pennsylvania. There are losers like that all over the nation.

I am 100% sure you have no idea what their brief is about..........., I have read it a few hours ago.

 

[Billy000]

Biden will be inaugurated 1/20.

 

[Aldo Raine]

rofl

There’s going to be mass alt-right suicide on Jan 20

We can only hope. Unfortunately a few will be close friends and probably 1 family member of mine but, to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

MAGA

 

[Juicin]

KAMALA STILL HAS NOT OFFICIALLY GIVEN UP HER SENATE SEAT....WHAT DOES SHE KNOW?

At first glance I was unimpressed with the filings because they all came from states that Trump won....but THIS! This is something very different and very significant folks. Add that to the growing number of witnesses coming out of the woodwork now and you have a Real headache brewing for Roberts who you know is going to try like hell to sweep this under the carpet.

Pennsylvania House Leaders File Brief to Support Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania

www.theepochtimes.com

Don't look for this headline in the MSM......you'll find it in an actual news paper.

BANG! This is the kind of language that Judges are likely to hear.... This will get a 5 to 4 in favor of I believe with the three progressives rubber stamping the Dems and Roberts ducking for cover behind PC cowardice.

Pennsylvania’s House speaker and majority leader on Thursday filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court against the state of Pennsylvania and in favor of Texas’s lawsuit against the commonwealth and three other states.

A brief (pdf) filed by Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, both Republicans, requests that the Supreme Court “carefully consider the procedural issues and questions raised by the Plaintiff concerning the administration of the 2020 General Election in Pennsylvania.”

“The unimpeachability of our elections requires clear procedures of administration so that everyone gets a fair shake. Unfortunately, outside actors have so markedly twisted and gerrymandered the Commonwealth’s Election Code to the point that amici find it unrecognizable from the laws that they enacted,” they wrote, adding that the state of Texas “raised important questions about how this procedural malfeasance affected the 2020 General Election.”

In the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced changes to election laws, deeming them unconstitutional. The suit also contends that by doing so, those states treated voters unequally and created significant voting irregularities by rescinding certain ballot-integrity measures.

Filed on Monday night, the lawsuit is requesting the Supreme Court to declare the four states carried out their respective elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“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,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the legal petition.

Cutler and Benninghoff, in support of Paxton’s lawsuit, further stipulated that “under the pretextual guise of COVID-19, special interests began attempting to use Pennsylvania courts” to carry out “election procedures of their own choosing,” citing mail-in ballot extensions implemented by Kathy Boockvar, the Pennsylvania secretary of state.


JO

They don't need a court, their legislature ratifies the electors.

If they choose electors who break with teh will of hte people most states have no civil or criminal penalty.

Including Penn

This is a sign they're not going to do anything and are going to try to blame the court system. It's one thing for Trump and others to file lawsuits, they don't control the electors in their states.

 

[mdk]

They don’t want to get their houses bombed tonight apparently.

 

[Juicin]

They don’t want to get their houses bombed tonight apparently.

probably some truth to this, at least the death threats will slow down

 

[Pogo]

Actually let's stop right here at the first line....

KAMALA STILL HAS NOT OFFICIALLY GIVEN UP HER SENATE SEAT....WHAT DOES SHE KNOW?

Umm.... WHAT TODAY'S DATE IS??

Why would she resign now? She's not VP until January 20, dumb shit.

 

[mdk]

They don’t want to get their houses bombed tonight apparently.

probably some truth to this, at least the death threats will slow down

Pennsylvania's Senate majority leader sure thinks so.

 

[wamose]

Pennsylvania was never Biden country. I live in a historically Democrat leaning county but this time it was overwhelmingly Trump. In the end, Trump was winning by a mile and our representative, Susan Wild, was getting her ass kicked on Thursday night. Somehow, Friday morning, Biden and Wild were both claiming victory in Northampton county. Fuck that noise. Even the legislature can see that. Democrats have turned totally corrupt and totalitarian. They see nothing wrong with stealing an election as long as it suits their beliefs. Fuck them.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Of course, if you're Chinese you'd agree a China boot licker is Constitutional

Do you undersand how insane, delusional and butthurt you sound? In case you don't, I just told you.

Seriously, you're a loony. You need step out of your fascist cult bubble and experience what the real world thinks of you.

And you're a delusion freak.

As if China has nothing to gain here.......

The stupidity is totally off the charts.......or your allegiance to the CCP is showing

PS: I couldn't care less what anti-American boot lickers think

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Rich coming from a Trump ass kisser.

RICH coming from a Democrat Fascist ass kisser

 

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will side with the Constitution on this.

Same here but we have to make sure we can say we tried.

You two have let the Chicoms demoralize you.

Fight, fight, go screaming and kicking into that great night!

Never let the bastards see you weaken.

One must exhaust every peaceful solution so what is done in war is justified.

 

[ReinyDays]

As if China has nothing to gain here.......

They'll lose if we stop buying their goods ... nothing says We the People can't finish what The Donald started ...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

KAMALA STILL HAS NOT OFFICIALLY GIVEN UP HER SENATE SEAT....WHAT DOES SHE KNOW?

At first glance I was unimpressed with the filings because they all came from states that Trump won....but THIS! This is something very different and very significant folks. Add that to the growing number of witnesses coming out of the woodwork now and you have a Real headache brewing for Roberts who you know is going to try like hell to sweep this under the carpet.

Pennsylvania House Leaders File Brief to Support Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania

www.theepochtimes.com

Don't look for this headline in the MSM......you'll find it in an actual news paper.

BANG! This is the kind of language that Judges are likely to hear.... This will get a 5 to 4 in favor of I believe with the three progressives rubber stamping the Dems and Roberts ducking for cover behind PC cowardice.

Pennsylvania’s House speaker and majority leader on Thursday filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court against the state of Pennsylvania and in favor of Texas’s lawsuit against the commonwealth and three other states.

A brief (pdf) filed by Pennsylvania House Speaker Bryan Cutler and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, both Republicans, requests that the Supreme Court “carefully consider the procedural issues and questions raised by the Plaintiff concerning the administration of the 2020 General Election in Pennsylvania.”

“The unimpeachability of our elections requires clear procedures of administration so that everyone gets a fair shake. Unfortunately, outside actors have so markedly twisted and gerrymandered the Commonwealth’s Election Code to the point that amici find it unrecognizable from the laws that they enacted,” they wrote, adding that the state of Texas “raised important questions about how this procedural malfeasance affected the 2020 General Election.”

In the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced changes to election laws, deeming them unconstitutional. The suit also contends that by doing so, those states treated voters unequally and created significant voting irregularities by rescinding certain ballot-integrity measures.

Filed on Monday night, the lawsuit is requesting the Supreme Court to declare the four states carried out their respective elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“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,” Paxton said in a statement announcing the legal petition.

Cutler and Benninghoff, in support of Paxton’s lawsuit, further stipulated that “under the pretextual guise of COVID-19, special interests began attempting to use Pennsylvania courts” to carry out “election procedures of their own choosing,” citing mail-in ballot extensions implemented by Kathy Boockvar, the Pennsylvania secretary of state.


JO

Amici curiae is Latin for “we’re friends of the idiots who filed this lawsuit and are just as idiotic.”

 

[Zorro!]

TEXAS SUIT IS NOT BUSH V GORE ALL OVER AGAIN: Margot Cleveland of The Federalist tees up six things you should know about the Lone Star State’s suit at the Supreme Court claiming multiple constitutional violations by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan in the November 3 election.

1. This Is Not Bush v. Gore
Texas’s lawsuit differs greatly from the Bush v. Gore. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.

The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.

When a state sues a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”

2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already Acted
Texas filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.

If they grant that, Illegitimate Joe is no longer "President-Elect"

Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”

Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas' Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.

3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional Claims

The Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”

Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.

The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”

But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.

Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.

The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.

These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause, because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”

In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.

“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.

These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.

4. Texas’s Standing to Sue
Texas argues that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.

First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”

Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “while Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:

States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia runoff elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “the electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors.

5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install Trump
These injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.

No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

6. Texas Brings the Quotes
The Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

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

If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.

While I think these are very important points for SCOTUS to rule on, with the States missing "Safe Harbor" and the House under Pelosi's thumb, I can see her refusing to hold a contingent election, which Trump would surely win. If the House cannot resolve who won the Presidency, then Pelosi, if the Presidential Succession act is Constitutional, would become acting President, though she would have to resign from the House and Speakership before assuming power, and she would only hold that power until either the House could resolve who would be President, or, the Senate could resolve who won the Vice Presidency.

Remember, during this period, after 1/6/21 but before 1/20/20, Pence is VP, and even if the Dems steal both GA runoffs, the GOP and Cocaine Mitch still hold majority control as the GOP holds the Vice Presidency and the tie breaker vote. If they resolve that Pence is VP, then Pence would assume the Powers of the Presidency, until the House determined the winner of the Contingent Election, which Pelosi will refuse to hold, so, unless the Dems dump her as Speaker, which is doubtful, a President will not be selected until Dems lose the majority in 2022 and Speaker McCarthy can finally hold the Contingent Election in 2023.

In the Meantime, while Pence will be "acting President" he will still hold the office of the Vice Presidency, which means he retains his ability to cast the tie breaker vote which keeps McConnell in the majority, even if Dems steal both Senate runoffs.

If Pence is doing a good job, while the Biden Crime Family probe, which is now enveloping Kamala, shows that we dodged a bullet, McCarthy may signal that on returning to the majority, that they may just leave well enough alone and allow Pence to complete his term. And interestingly, the way the 22nd amendment is worded, Pence would be serving as "acting president" in a term for which no was ever elected, which means he would likely remain eligible to be elected to two full terms, though I doubt he would chose to be elected more than once, but, for the first time since the 22nd amendment was ratified, we would have a 2nd term President who wasn't a Lame Duck.