Texas goes to SCOTUS

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Texas intervenes in MI, PA WA

This is an approach that had not occurred to me, a direct route to SCOTUS.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

56 thoughts on “Texas goes to SCOTUS”

  1. I wonder what the standing is as far as damage to Texas. Today is safe harbor day which protects the states’ electoral votes from Congressional challenges. So the object is to nullify 15 or so million voters because Texas is hurt?

    This is the same argument that failed in state lower and supreme courts as well as federal and federal appeals courts.

    In other words, the same tactic used by the Thomas More Society in cahoots Trump to flood the judiciary with smoke and mirrors to make it look as if states could not come to a verdict on the election.

    SCOTUS is not going to toss out 80 million voters, the vast majority of the electorate, because of an interpretation of the law regarding ballot arrival times. Particularly when all interpretations so far are against doing so.

    More frivolity and more cash in Trump’s wallet. Silverware is next.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. I do not know how SCOTUS will decide, but Texas can sue on behalf of it’s voters.

      They are damaged in that the votes in those states that followed the Constitution are compromised by those in states that did not.

      And it is not about ballot arrival times, it is about whether those states violated the Constitution by allowing their executive branches to assume powers specifically given to the legislatures by Article 2 of the US Constitution.

      In that, Texas is correct, but I don’t know what remedy SCOTUS will prescribe.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I believe that SCOTUS has already ruled that PA acted appropriately. I guess Trump can try for a redo with Barrett on the bench

        Trump’s stealing the election is the issue. As one federal judge noted, voters pick presidents, not lawyers.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

        1. There is no requirement that States even hold an election. The electors are chosen by the States in the manner determined by their legislatures. That could be by the legislatures themselves, or by an election, or by a coin toss. The federal government’s involvement is limited to ensuring that IF an election is held it meets Constitutional requirements.

          Like

          Reply

        2. RE: “I believe that SCOTUS has already ruled that PA acted appropriately.”

          Nope. SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on any appeal to the PA supreme court decision. In fact, the Texas suit gives SCOTUS a second opportunity to decide that matter.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on any appeal to the PA supreme court decision. ”

            I’m pretty sure they refused to hear the case which is tantamount to rule against the appeal.

            Like

          2. RE: “I’m pretty sure they refused to hear the case which is tantamount to rule against the appeal.”

            Do you have a cite? I searched for SCOTUS rulings on the appeal before commenting, and found none.

            Like

    2. RE: “SCOTUS is not going to toss out 80 million voters…”

      Texas isn’t suing for that. It seeks relief only for the use of “unlawful election results” in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The relief would be to allow the legislatures of those states to appoint Presidential Electors.

      Like

      Reply

      1. And if the election picks a new winner, then 80 million voters will lose. That’s the problem with the electoral system that the founders never anticipated.

        Ironically they were trying to protect the smaller states, which are pretty much out of the picture now since the big states are the swings.

        “Relief” for Texas is going to be a hard sell.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “And if the election picks a new winner, then 80 million voters will lose.

          If the election is unconstitutional, then 160 million voters lose.

          Like

          Reply

        2. What I font troubling is that you seem to have no problem with election officials not following the law.

          An individual who will not follow the law is pretty easy to deal with, but a government which will not be restrained by the Rule of Law is a far larger problem.

          The PA legislature violated its own Constitution. The MI, WI, AZ and GA executive branches violated the laws passed by their own legislatures.

          That is a big deal, far bigger then the election.

          Like

          Reply

          1. According to you, they did.

            But you also insisted that no observers were in the video, which there were as per GA officials, but that they violated the law when they did not.

            I find that troubling also. As my quote showed, there is no law requiring partisan observers and they left voluntarily. No one told them to go. And there was an independent observer there the whole time.

            And that Trump tried to extort, bully, threaten and intimidate governors, legislators and election officials to break the law so he could win.

            Which is it? Just laws you like or not?

            Can’t have it both ways and be honest.

            Liked by 4 people

          2. The observers were not thrown out by force but they were told that because of a water main break counting would be stopped until the next morning, After they left, counting resumed unsupervised.

            Like

          3. You continue to press THAT lie, along with all of the others. Len posted the debunking and you STILL post the same shit.

            Saying the same lie over and over does NOT make it true.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Off the rails. There are no “guilty officials” because there was no crime committed.

            And those you claim to be guilty fall under the auspices of the Secretary of State who is responsible for the elections.

            Even your usual common sense seems to have left.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. The water main break was at 6 am and the counting resumed at 11am, same day.

            More lies. An independent observer and election officials that stayed are now in on the plot?

            So how can you say unsupervised? Add in surveillance cameras on top of that.

            Plus your “sources” lied about suitcases too. They were standard ballot boxes.

            This has been investigated to absurd levels and your sources are all lying. Many of the observers that Republicans provided were not even trained and had little idea of procedures.

            You have Democrat Derangement Syndrome.
            DDS.

            A title worn proudly…😇?

            Liked by 2 people

          9. RE: “But you also insisted that no observers were in the video, which there were as per GA officials, but that they violated the law when they did not.”

            No, I believe he said that observers leaving the room because they were tricked into doing so would be a violation of the law. The video confirms that observers left the room, just as they swore in their witness affidavits. They swore that they left because the process was done for the night. There is no reason to disbelieve them.

            More to the point, the video is immaterial to the Texas suit, which alleges “GA officials” violated existing statutes (pages 21 thru 23).

            Like

          10. “The PA legislature violated its own Constitution”

            A law that was written and passed by a GOP-led legislature, The time to bring the suits was IMMEDIATELY after the law was passed. And basically the GOP members of the State Legislature are suing themselves. Sounds about as Trumpy as possible..

            Liked by 1 person

          11. At the time the law was passed the plaintiffs were not up for election and did not have standing.

            Are you claiming that by passing the law at a time when there was no election pending it could never be challenged even though blatantly unconstitutional under the PA constitution?

            Like

          12. There have been two elections held in PA since the law was passed.

            If it was so “unconstitutional” it should have never been considered. Now that the GOP candidate for POTUS lost, they are all in a tizzy about a law they themselves passed. Reason has left the building.

            YOU LOST!

            Liked by 2 people

        1. Or a loss depending on one’s perspective….

          Just more damage to the fabric of our Democracy being inflicted by the adherents to the lunatic fringe.

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

  2. Typically, the arguments of these Trumpkins and of their two chief apologists on this forum do not even make sense. Gee, they say, Pennsylvania violated the Constitution because the Constitution says that the Legislature chooses how Electors are chosen. I am pretty sure that it was the Legislature of Pennsylvania – in a bi-partisan vote – that decided to expand mail-in voting. And that was two elections ago. So, what exactly is their Constitutional beef? Is Trump losing unconstitutional? In their minds the answer must be yes.

    Their intellectual gymnastics would be funny if they and people like them were not doing so much damage to the bedrock of respect for the law and for the votes of the people on which our nation stands. The kindest word for their nonsense is, maybe, shameful.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. “All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.”

        PA Constitution, Article 4

        “(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the State or county of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of Election Day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.”

        PA Constitution, Article 14

        Now, two observations on the Article 14:

        One is they are a bit vague with the term “electors” since that is the common term for the 20 electors selected.

        Two, there are examples for absentee ballots, but not exclusions. And “illness” would be that with an asymptomatic disease, illness may or may not be apparent, but still sick. Nothing says that the legislature, since they are charged with prescribing the law for voting, cannot adjust for a pandemic.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. “Under federal law, Congress must count the electoral votes from states that act by Dec. 8 to choose their presidential electors — the people who meet next week in each state to cast the actual votes for president — and to resolve any remaining legal disputes over their choices.

        The Electoral Count Act was passed in 1887, after four states sent in votes from two different sets of electors from the 1876 presidential race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. Congress had established no mechanism to resolve fights over competing slates of electors, and it adopted the act in hope of heading off future disputes.”

        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/what-safe-harbor-day-why-it-s-bad-news-trump-n1250205

        So any remaining legal disputes after today have no bearing on changing the electors. And SCOTUS would take the case as a legal dispute, but no matter after the deadline. They might find the legislators liable for something, but they cannot change the electors.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      3. Again and again you defend your nonsense with untruths.

        The PA Constitution gives very broad powers to the Legislature with respect to organizing elections. The language is clear and unambiguous . . .

        “All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law; Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.”

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. RE: “The PA Constitution gives very broad powers to the Legislature with respect to organizing elections.”

          No one disputes the plenary power of the legislature. That power, however, doesn’t include the authority to run an illegal election.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I have not left out anything relevant. I do not do that. When have been down this road several times. You state categorically that the PA Legislature passed a law in violation of the PA Constitution. That is FALSE. The language in Section 4 unambiguously grants wide authority to the Legislature on how elections are to be organized. What part of this is not clear to you?

            “All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or BY SUCH OTHER METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW; Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.”

            Section 2 defines when Election Day falls. Nothing in the law changed Election Day. Collecting and holding votes to be counted on Election Day does not change Election Day. Duh!

            Section 14 places a requirement on the Legislature – to accommodate defined classes of voters not able to vote on Election Day. It is not restrictive in language or intent. It places no limits of any kind nor does it supersede the plain language in Section 4.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Again, you exclude sections 2and 14.”

            I’d be interested to understand how sections 2 and 14 apply. The way I read it, Texas doesn’t argue that the election violated the state constitution, but that it violated its own election code.

            Like

      4. I am not sure that the law alone is the tactic. I believe Texas alleges that the integrity of the vote is compromised by the law allowing absentee and mail in ballots.

        And that could be a problem, since Trump, et.al. have failed to show that there was fraud or at least credible fraud that could change the results. And so far, nothing that has gone before innumerable courts and judges has indicated that.

        I think that will be the key question.If no harm to the quality of the votes can be shown, then the Constitutionality can be addressed in a state legal battle down the line.

        The reason I think that this is the case is because Texas is declaring harm from the actual ballots, not PA’s laws. If no credible evidence exists to show corrupted votes on any scale, then no harm to Texas.

        The sanctity of the vote is so strong, it is codified 5 times in the Constitution. It also gave rise to the 1877 law that sets today as the sanctuary date after which electors cannot be challenged. The object is to protect the voters in a state from Congressional challenges and certainly another state unhappy with the results could not have precedence over that.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. RE: ” I believe Texas alleges that the integrity of the vote is compromised by the law allowing absentee and mail in ballots.”

          Nope. See pages 14 thru 20 of the filing. Texas doesn’t argue that the PA ballots are illegal, but that they were processed illegally.

          RE: “It also gave rise to the 1877 law that sets today as the sanctuary date after which electors cannot be challenged.”

          There’s no such thing as “safe harbor day” with an illegal election.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Illegal election? SCOTUS just confirmed that the PA Supreme Court ruling stands. And that Court said the voting rules were constitutional among other findings.

            So despite the “rulings” by Trump and his fans, the election was legal.

            Same with Texas. They can stipulate anything they want, but that is not evidence that the votes were illegal, fraudulent or any other issue they can dream up.

            At this point, and even more so on Monday, any redress would be to change laws going forward.

            Liked by 2 people

      5. The ruling today by Alito in rejecting the PA suit reaffirmed the Supreme Court of PA, which said the law was Constitutional.

        I tend to take the legal words of top courts as being valid.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    2. RE: “I am pretty sure that it was the Legislature of Pennsylvania – in a bi-partisan vote – that decided to expand mail-in voting. And that was two elections ago. So, what exactly is their Constitutional beef?”

      In the suit, the “Constitutional beef” is that Pennsylvania conducted an illegal election because officials violated the state’s own election code as written (pages 14 thru 20). The suit also alleges PA violated the SCOTUS order to segregate late mail-in ballots.

      Like

      Reply

      1. …”also alleges PA violated the SCOTUS order to segregate late mail-in ballots.”

        It is an allegation. A false one to boot. They did keep the ballots segregated. For all you know they may still be.

        To accuse PA of running an illegal election is the last desperate act of a desperate loser.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. Oh, yeah, sure. Of course it is.

            Trump has partnered with the Thomas More Society to file separate suits with the same bogus evidence so it jams the system.

            You can bet there is plenty of collusion (there is that nasty word again) between Trump and states with politicians who fear the president. Texas AG, Paxton, is enmeshed in bribery scandal investigations, and I believe Jimmie brought up the pardon issue.

            Hmmm, I wonder if he is the redacted name in the bribery for pardon investigation by DOJ.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. The attempts to disenfranchise 80 million American voting citizens (which is what will happen if the voters in the contested states have their votes overturned by zealous, demagogue judges and legislatures) is the most disgusting attack on democracy in the history of this country. The nit-picky, whiny, cry baby, give me back my tennis pavilion BS is making this country, and those that support the endeavors look like fools.

    Those of you who claim “rule of law” ignore and poo-poo the rules, laws and standards that this country has followed for over 230 years are not patriots, You are what you accuse those who disagree with you to be.

    Congratulations. Vladimir Putin is very very happy.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You think Putin follows the election laws in Russia?

      Demanding the election be carried out in the manner prescribed by law is not disenfranchising anyone.

      On the contrary, canceling out the votes cast in states that followed the law by overwhelming them with unlawful votes is disenfranchising those legal voters.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “flooding them with unlawful votes” is not the same as fraudulent ballots.

        If a law is on the books for a year or more, election officials are instructed to follow the law, as are the voters. .If later on, the law is shown to be un-Constitutional, then it can be rewritten.

        When SCOTUS trashed the Voter Rights Bill a few years ago, it was not retroactive. Neither should this be.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      2. RE: ““flooding them with unlawful votes” is not the same as fraudulent ballots.”

        Why not? The effect is the same. Besides, counting unlawful votes is necessarily fraudulent.

        RE: “If a law is on the books for a year or more, election officials are instructed to follow the law, as are the voters.”

        The suit alleges that election officials in the defendant states did not follow the law.

        Like

        Reply

      3. “. . . overwhelming them with unlawful votes is disenfranchising those legal voters.”

        Leaving aside that there were no unlawful votes, your argument is nonsense. Texas voters chose their Electors. What went on in other states has zero effect on their choice. You think they are entitled to win the national election? They are not. Now, if we had a national popular vote for President then your words like “overwhelming them” might make a little more sense. But we don’t. Each state stands alone. Check with any “originalist” if you do not believe me.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

Leave a comment