T. Belman. It appears that the merits will not be heard until October. This is unconscionable. If the ruling disqualifies Biden , then he will be removed from office as an illegitimate president. These cases should be fast tracked.
BY February 6, 2021
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday scheduled several high-profile contest-of-election lawsuits, including ones brought by attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, and the Trump campaign, for consideration at its Feb. 19 conference.
According to a case listing, the lawsuits include Sidney Powell’s Michigan case (20-815), the Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania lawsuit (20-845) and Wisconsin lawsuit (20-882), the Pennsylvania lawsuit brought by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) (20-810), and Lin Wood’s Georgia case (20-799).
All cases allege some form of unlawful election-related conduct affecting the result of the election, including expansion of mail-in balloting by elections officials changing rules in contravention of state election laws, lack of adequate security measures around mail ballots, issues with machine vote tabulation, and denial of meaningful access to poll watchers.
The Supreme Court declined to grant relief or fast-track the cases as requested in respective petitions filed ahead of the Jan. 20 inauguration of President Joe Biden.
Powell’s Michigan petition (pdf) sought “emergency declaratory relief avowing that the presidential election results certified by Michigan officials were unconstitutional and otherwise contrary to law, together with injunctive relief de-certifying those results.”
Wood’s Georgia petition (pdf) asked the Supreme Court to “enter an emergency order instructing Respondents to de-certify the results of the General Election for the Office of the President.”
The Kelly petition (pdf) asked the court for an injunction “that prohibits the Executive-Respondents from taking official action to tabulate, compute, canvass, certify, or otherwise finalize the results of the Election.”
The Trump campaign suits similarly called for emergency injunctive relief in the form of expedited hearings and blocking certification of the electoral college votes for Biden.
Some of the lawyers in the cases said that seeing the challenges through is important as they could have an impact on long-term election fairness.
“Our legal issue remains important in need of the court’s review,” attorney John Eastman told the Washington Examiner, referring to Pennsylvania’s conduct during the 2020 election.
Greg Teufel, Kelly’s lawyer, told the Washington Examiner that the congressman has no intention of dropping the suit.
The Supreme Court has kept its distance from Trump’s election challenges. In December, it rejected a lawsuit filed by the Republican attorney general of Texas and backed by Trump seeking to decertify the election results in four states.
If, at the Feb. 19 conference, the Supreme Court decides to take up any of the election lawsuits, they most likely won’t be heard until October.
In a sweeping report on the integrity of the 2020 election, Trump adviser Peter Navarro concluded that the allegations of irregularities surrounding the vote in key battleground states were serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to potentially overturn the results.
“If these election irregularities are not fully investigated prior to Inauguration Day and thereby effectively allowed to stand, this nation runs the very real risk of never being able to have a fair presidential election again,” Navarro warned in his report.
Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM<
>
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Hi Adam,
Your analysis is well based(as always) and may very well be the correct interpretation of the outcome of this conference, but there are actually significant issues – many of them – which are related to these cases that call for judicial review and resolution. And there exists a whole host of these issues which are not specific to the presidential election, but to the entire down ballot, even to the level of school boards and such. Time will tell if you are correct, of course. I do fear that you may be correct, but, with a firm heart I pray(as I am sure you do) that you are wrong. Ultimately, I guess, it will be determined if the Court is as solidly captured in the grip of rot and corruption as almost all of our other institutions. I have nothing that would recommend to me that this is the case given the Court’s role in the past several months other than the role of the chief justice may have played a larger role in the events over these months than they will during the hearing of these cases. Yet, I do hold out hope to the contrary.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
On the contrary. They know they have to settle this issue before the next election in 2022.
The Supreme Court jhas only agreed to hold a conference in which they will decide whether or not to hear the lawsuits. They have not decided to hear them, only to confer with the lawyers before deciding whether or not to hear them. I believe they will dismiss the cases on the grounds that with the election over and a new government in office, the question of the fairness and honesty of the election is now “moot.” The Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on these and other lawsuits alleging election fraud demonstrate that they are scared of provoking an armed insurrection by the Democrat-controlled armed militias (Antifa, BLM. etc.). I think they may also fear personal retataliation if they stand up to the violent mobs (for example, being assassinated). And being “establishment” lawyers, they are not willing to challenge the numerous fellow establishment lawyers who worked so hard to rig the election. The “legal fraternity” likes to stick together.
Hi stevenl,
You said
I have to say that I think there is room for hope in spite of the fact that I could be persuaded by your arguments. First, the issue of before Jan. 20 and after Jan. 20 are different issues. If we were to assume that there was no corruption involved in the SC decision to ignore the multitude of fruad present in the Nov. 3 election, and arguably that is a big assumption, there is a good chance a somewhat positive result of the cases before them may occur. Before Jan. 20, a decision would have placed the SC, as it did in 2000, in the role of deciding the election in a time the country was deeply divided. The Court routinelly does try to find other means to resolve such divisive issues even though this is the role they are tasked with. If this was their reasoning, I think it could be argued that in the cases going forward, even if they do not overturn the 2020 election(which needs to be done), they could resolve the cases with meaningful reforms regarding voting machines and overriding State Legislature’s control of election laws. Going forward, these would be significant wins for the country. If as many suspect, CJ Roberts is compromised and controlled, their is only so much authority and control he can wield over the court, though it is significant. If, however many of the conservative justices are compromised, your suspicion would be proven true. But with the revelations regarding the election fraud, it will put a lot of pressure upon the Court to rule on these issues going forward at a minimum.
The SC won’t dare do anything ethical!
If both parties (dems and repub) agree to ignore the constitution, what can or should the SC do? Should the SC wash its hands and take it as “fait accompli”?
The SC didn’t care then and won’t care now.
Slippery slope!