T. Belman. I have high hopes for this lawsuit. The USSC is asked rule on a point of law, namely were the changes to the law premitted by officials, legal? In other words, I expect the Court to reaffirm that all changes to the rules must be done by the legislature. I can’t imagine them not ruling otherwise. Thus the Court doesn’t have to look into the question of fraud. If they rule so, each legislature must then appoint electors or no electors. Either way Trump wins reelection.
Another reason for the court to rule against the changes to the law permitting more mail-in ballots is that it violates the voter’s equal protection rights. This is the same reason that the Court ruled against the hanging chads. Dershowitz thinks not.
By Jim Hoft, GATEWAY PUNDIT .. December 8, 2020 at 7:48pm
On Monday morning the state of Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the US Supreme Court challenging their unlawful election procedures.
Texas argued these four states violated the US Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions. But these states did not make the changes through the state legislatures as spelled out in the US Constitution.
Then later this evening Allen West announced that seven additional states had joined Texas in its lawsuit against unlawful election procedures.
Tonight on Stinchfield Trump Attorney Jordan Sekulow announced that Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are required to respond to this Texas lawsuit by Thursday.
Jordan Sekulow is a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team.
Jordan Sekulow: I can already report now the Supreme Court has put on the docket the parties: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. When you look at the states that were named they have to now respond by Thursday at 3 PM to this bill of complaint. And they have to respond to very specific items. So the Supreme Court is not just considering what Texas filed today they are now going the next step which is we want a response from the states named… Again I think this is very clear. This is the case we’ve been talking about to reach SCOTUS. This is the outcome determinative case. 62 electoral college votes at stake enough to change the outcome of the election.
And then Jordan added this:
There are two reliefs sought. One is these legislatures that are all controlled by Republicans can seat new electors because the elections violated the electors clause due process and equal protection. And because of that they can seat new electors… And if it went to the House then Republicans control that 27 to 22 so it would be Republicans choosing the next president if it had to go the House of Representatives… This is the major challenge, the one we were waiting for. It has enough electoral votes at stake to change the outcome… The court is deciding that it wants more briefing and it is great news… This is the end all, be all case.
@ Edgar G.:
I wonder what Revealer will have to say about sweeping back the ocean with a broom, which is what Texas et al are trying to do:
“2020 is the most disputed election in living memory. After dragging its feet, the Republican party is coming round to efforts to investigate the results, with a batch of Republican state attorneys general backing Ken Paxton’s lawsuit challenging election procedures in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia.
“But you won’t be allowed to talk about it on YouTube.
“Despite escalating legal challenges to the election result, the Google-owned platform announced that it will remove videos questioning Biden’s victory, while promoting “authoritative” sources like CBS and NBC to its users.
““we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election,” said YouTube in a statement.”
— https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/12/10/bokhari-the-gop-will-learn-about-tech-censorship-the-hard-way/
We’ll see what happens.
@ Ted Belman:
Perhaps the fraud tips the state to the Dems and they chose the electors…That is if the Electors votes are what decide the election. But I think that they would be challenged by the slew of suits that might propel the actual choice of a President to the 1 vote per state decider.
Just guessing. Revealer should be able to tell us.
@ Revealer:
Another 22 Democrat states are opposing it. Just heard it 30 mins ago. So it’s a War between the States all over again, but without guns, only cyber technique, and words. The Dems have been perfecting their fraud scams since their Tammany Hall /Mafia days.
@ Ted Belman:
“What are the odds?”
California’s pretty odd, and New York…” I haven’t followed any odds, ever since the oddsmakers’ completely missing the target in 2016. Lin Wood is telling Republicans not to vote, nearly all congressional Republicans are sitting on their hands, hardly any Republicans listen to the President and some have viciously attacked him. All bets are off.
Meanwhile, China is reported to be doing great!
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/container%20rates.png?itok=UUYQG7GK
Look at that trade spike with the Mediterranean and Northern Europe!
Good time for a miracle. Happy Hanukkah!
The House vote is divided 27 votes to Republicans and 22 to Dems. The GOP already has 18 votes ie Texas plus states who have joined in. 5 more are needed to elect the president in the House. Who will the other states be? If it comes to that.
On the other hand, Trump already has 232 electoral votes.He needs 38 more Therefore he needs 3 states out of PA, GA, AZ, GA, WI, MI. What are the odds?
Time for the SC to chose Hara Kiri now or later?
Getting the 4 states response does not necessarily force the SC to do anything. Just getting info!
Kavanaugh sided with the progressive in the 1st Penn inquiry!
@ Ted Belman:
The fraudulent votes cancel out (disenfranchise) legal votes …
@ Ted Belman:
Ted, the Texas vs. PA et al lawsuit says,
“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizens and the States in this Union together: Georgia et al destroyed that trust…”
The fundamental issue here is the TRUST of the American people, in ALL states, in the election process. If fraudulent processes are allowed by SCOTUS to run roughshod over American elections, the trust of Americans in the process itself is destroyed; and we are transformed from a democracy to a thugocracy. If SCOTUS does not effectively address this issue, then the entire US Constitution is undermined and replaced by chaos. Whatever the legal fine points the lawyers may argue, this will be the result of SCOTUS’s actions if not otherwise balanced (as by martial law, etc.).
What about Covid and State Of Emergency powers? Did these State officials change the voting laws due to ‘emergency’ powers granted by the legislatures? I know in Victoria Australia for instance the Premier has had immense powers to act due to declared State Of Emergency granted by the State legislature.
@ Revealer:
Welcome to Israpundit. Yes the USSC is going to hear the matter and yes many lawyers agree that it will succeed, but I have a question that is troubling me. In essence the argument is that an extra 1 million fraudulent votes in the defendant state diminishes the value of a vote in a plaintif state.
Since the defendant states are only entitled to a fixed number of electoral votes, likewise the plaintiff states, how are the voters in the -plaintiff states diminished by the fraud?
@ Revealer:
That sounds good…coming from you. I listened to a lawyer on youtube today who said almost the same thing, but was not sure. He was the head of R&R Legal Group, a leading Arizona law firm, and actually a criminal defence lawyer, who has had a 90 min. daily (4.pm Pacific time) exposition of what’s going on, for the past few months. I find it very interesting, but now, with the Youtube ban on interesting content about the frauds, starting today, I don’t know how he’ll proceed. He doesn’t know himself and by coincidence won’t be on the air until next Monday, byt which time many things should have happened. He is tied up in conferences for the next 4 days. Obviously not a Jew, and didn’t even mention Chanukah.. Which reminds me….
*****Chag Chanukah Sameach to all Israpunditeers******.
You are the first on this site who has revealed himself as a lawyer, and fortuitously, a specialist at that, other than Ted, whose field of practice in Toronto Canada, certainly did not include the US Constitution, although I’m sure he has suitable knowledgeable contacts
Of course we have a load of would-be lawyers and studiously informed amateur litigators who know everything……..except the fact that they don’t know anything.
@ greenrobot:
Yes I am…how did you know…..maybe you are CIA….eh…?? !!
I’m a retired practicing lawyer with license to practice before the Supreme Court and have filed petitions to the court. I could be wrong, but I believe the court will hear this case under it’s original jurisdiction. When you add in the 4 state defendants and the 18 state plaintiffs that totals 22 states citizens involved in the controversy. That means the interest of the majority of US citizens interest in the 2020 election are at stake. it will be very difficult for the court to ignore how important this issue is to the nation.
@ Edgar G.: You are a speculator for the FBI? LOL
@ Edgar G.:
And if ordered to act as a Legislature should, they could still reaffirm the original Electoral College choices, who may be anti-Trump. Unless this huge SC action has shelved any act they may belatedly try to make.
I have no real idea how US State Law works so could be completely wrong. Just allowing for potential possibilities .
It would not have come to this if the Republican-controlled Legislatures had acted for the good of their Party and the American People. They didn’t. and showed great reluctance to even consider so doing. They could refuse to do as the Supremes direct…It looks as if many are also amongst the anti-Trump crowd, maybe promised later big rewards by Dems….