Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

[Dinarrock]

2 hours ago, yota691 said:

@ 17 how many more will join? Wonder what happen when 25 states join..

17 states back Texas SCOTUS suit; Huawei tested software to ID Uighurs, alert police | NTD Business
93,256 views•Streamed live 74 minutes ago

 

Yota can you tell me Why along with all the uniformed demorats Why 17 states are backing this completely baseless lawsuit where the MSM has said there is no fraud found in our elections? Can you explain why they would do this it makes no sense to me but of course I am extremely thick headed and easily lead like a sheep so I kind of believe everything I am told...lololololol...okay I can’t say anymore...lol

Edited December 10, 2020 by Dinarrock

[Theseus]

1 hour ago, Dinarrock said:

Yota can you tell me Why along with all the uniformed demonrats Why 17 states are backing this completely baseless lawsuit where the MSM has said there is no fraud found in our elections? Can you explain why they would do this it makes no sense to me but of course I am extremely thick headed and easily lead like a sheep so I kind of believe everything I am told...lololololol...okay I can’t say anymore...lol

Are you sure you have the right screen name and yours doesn't start with an S and end in -licious?

 

At last count and at the time of this writing 18 states with another on the way - Idaho.

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, Dinarrock said:

Yota can you tell me Why along with all the uniformed demorats Why 17 states are backing this completely baseless lawsuit where the MSM has said there is no fraud found in our elections? Can you explain why they would do this it makes no sense to me but of course I am extremely thick headed and easily lead like a sheep so I kind of believe everything I am told...lololololol...okay I can’t say anymore...lol

The AG's of these States have filed suit stating that these swing states should have their elections voided due to corruption....

 

That corruption, whether it is failing to adhere to State or Federal laws not being followed......voting machine issues......dead people voting.......300% turn out in a district of registered voters.....etc.....

 

Because it is a Federal election.....these States where the results were questionable may have screwed the election up for everyone ....

Let's let it play out.....

CL

[Dinarrock]

2 hours ago, Theseus said:

Are you sure you have the right screen name and yours doesn't start with an S and end in -licious?

 

At last count and at the time of this writing 18 states with another on the way - Idaho.

That’s an awesome reply and the exact point I was trying to refer to thanks for making me truly laugh tonight! So from one true Patriot to another true Patriot thank you for all your efforts in posting on this forum! We will get through this together in the end with our rightfully Re-elected President Trump and our country and economy is going to skyrocket over the next four plus years!! Personally I hope Trump JR. decides to run for President after his father’s second term is over he would be a shoe in I would guess after we see where our country will be in the next four years!!

Edited December 10, 2020 by Dinarrock

[Shabibilicious]

GO RV, then BV

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/17-red-states-join-texas-211617457.html

 

17 red states join Texas' lawsuit to throw out blue states' ballots — even though some had the same voting rules

 

 

Kathryn Krawczyk

Wed, December 9, 2020, 4:16 PM EST

 

 

Texas and a slew of other GOP-leaning states are accusing four blue states of doing the same things they did.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to overturn votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, thus reversing President-elect Joe Biden's win. Seventeen more states signed on to the suit on Wednesday, though they probably won't do much to further the case's very slim chances of success.

Essentially, the Texas lawsuit alleges executive officials in the four states that went for Biden improperly tweaked voting rules, thus invalidating their results. But Texas' own Republican governor did exactly the same thing, using an executive order to extend the early voting period for the 2020 election, Reuters' Brad Heath notes. The suit also alleges Pennsylvania's decision to accept late-arriving ballots "raise[s] concerns about election integrity" there, even though Kansas and Mississippi, two supporters in the case, accepted late ballots as well.

 

President Trump signaled support for the suit on Wednesday, tweeting that "we will be intervening in the Texas case," but not exactly spelling out what "intervening" meant. Maryland's Democratic Attorney General Brian Frosh meanwhile had these harsh words for the suit he would definitely not be joining.

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Theseus]

[Shabibilicious]

States poised to respond to Texas bid to overturn U.S. election at Supreme Court

 

 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

 

By Lawrence Hurley

Thu, December 10, 2020, 12:41 PM EST

 

 

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four U.S. states that President Donald Trump lost in the Nov. 3 election are due on Thursday to file their opposition to a long-shot Republican-backed lawsuit filed by Texas at the Supreme Court seeking to undo President-elect Joe Biden's victory.

Officials from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin already have called the lawsuit, which aims to throw out the voting results in the four states, a reckless attack on democracy. The Supreme Court gave the four states a 3 p.m. EST (2000 GMT) deadline to file court papers in the case.

 

The lawsuit is supported by Trump and 17 other states. The Republican president has falsely claimed he won re-election and has made baseless allegations of widespread voting fraud. State election officials have said they have found no evidence of such fraud.

"The Supreme Court has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States," Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday, repeating his unfounded allegations that the election was rigged against him.

The Texas suit argued that changes made by the four states to voting procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic to expand mail-in voting were unlawful. Legal experts have said the lawsuit has little chance of succeeding and have questioned whether Texas has the legal standing to challenge election procedures in other states.

Trump filed a motion with the court on Wednesday asking the nine justices to let him intervene and become a plaintiff in the suit, which was filed on Tuesday by Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas and an ally of the president. Paxton faces allegations in Texas of bribery and abuse of his office to benefit a political donor, according to local media. He has denied wrongdoing.

If the justices let Trump join the lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a sitting U.S. president asking the top American court to decide that millions of votes cast in the four states did not count. Biden defeated Trump in the four states, which Trump had won in the 2016 election.

Democrats and other critics have accused Trump of aiming to reduce public confidence in U.S. election integrity and undermine democracy by trying to subvert the will of the voters.

The lawsuit represents the latest in a long series of legal challenges - so far unsuccessful - brought by Trump's campaign and allies trying to change the election results.

In a separate brief, lawyers for 17 states led by Missouri's Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt on Wednesday also urged the justices to hear the case.

In addition to Missouri, the states joining Texas were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. All of the states were represented by Republican officials in the filing. All but three of the states have Republican governors.

The lawsuit was filed directly with the Supreme Court rather than with a lower court, as is permitted for certain litigation between states.

Texas asked the Supreme Court to immediately block the four states from using the voting results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and allow their state legislatures to name the electors rather than having the electors reflect the will of the voters.

All four of the targeted states have Republican-led legislatures. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have Democratic governors, while Georgia has a Republican governor.

Biden has amassed 306 electoral votes - far higher than the necessary 270 - compared to Trump's 232 in the state-by-state Electoral College that determines the election's outcome. The four states contribute a combined 62 electoral votes to Biden's total.

Texas also asked the Supreme Court to delay the Dec. 14 date for Electoral College votes to be formally cast, a date set by law in 1887.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump. Before the election, Trump said he expected its outcome to be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/states-poised-respond-texas-bid-174119448.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

Sasse Predicts Supreme Court Will Toss ‘PR Stunt’ Texas Election Lawsuit

 

 

Mairead McArdle

Thu, December 10, 2020, 1:06 PM EST

 

 

Senator Ben Sasse on Thursday said he expects the Supreme Court to throw out a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory.

“I’m no lawyer but I suspect the Supreme Court swats this away,” Sasse said in a statement.

“From the brief, it looks like a fella begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt rather than a lawsuit – as all of its assertions have already been rejected by federal courts and Texas’s own solicitor general isn’t signing on,” the Nebraska Republican said.

 

Eighteen states joined the lawsuit, filed Monday in the Supreme Court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, which seeks to block presidential electors in four battleground states from casting their votes for Biden.

The lawsuit argues that the electoral vote should be delayed in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as investigations into voting irregularities continue. Texas and the other states are requesting an emergency order to invalidate millions of ballots in the four swing states.

The legal claims in the Texas lawsuit have largely been heard already in lower courts over the course of various cases filed by the Trump team and its allies since the election. All 50 states have already certified their election results.

On Wednesday, the attorneys general of seventeen states Trump won last month filed an amicus brief in the case. The red states that joined that brief are Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Arizona’s Republican attorney general Mark Brnovich filed his own brief expressing his support for the lawsuit despite Biden’s victory in Arizona.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s rejection on Tuesday of a similar lawsuit from Pennsylvania Republicans seeking to invalidate the state’s presidential vote results.

Sasse has been critical of the Trump campaign’s refusal to concede the presidential race and was one of the first Republican senators to recognize Biden as president-elect.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sasse-predicts-supreme-court-toss-180600825.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Markinsa]

4 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

The Texas suit argued that changes made by the four states to voting procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic to expand mail-in voting were unlawful. Legal experts have said the lawsuit has little chance of succeeding and have questioned whether Texas has the legal standing to challenge election procedures in other states.

Trump filed a motion with the court on Wednesday asking the nine justices to let him intervene and become a plaintiff in the suit, which was filed on Tuesday by Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas and an ally of the president.

 

I just realized the question in the first paragraph will be null if President Trump is allowed to intervene, because President Trump does have standing.

 

.

[8th ID]

7 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

Senator Ben Sasse on Thursday said he expects the Supreme Court to throw out a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory.

If the SC throws it out then they are part of the problem too and I am for an all out war against all traitors of the constitution. However, I believe there are some good constitutional justices on the court that will do the right thing according to the constitution.

[yota691]

Texas Attorney General explains state's Supreme Court election integrity lawsuit
512,015 views•Dec 8, 2020

 

[yota691]

Michigan attorney general responds to Texas' lawsuit on state's election process
48,442 views•Dec 10, 2020

 

[yota691]

Georgia Secretary of State's Office files response to Texas election lawsuit
22,301 views•Dec 10, 2020

 

[yota691]

Over 100 House GOP Sign Brief Supporting Longshot Texas Lawsuit Challenging Election Results
10,165 views•Dec 10, 2020

 

[coorslite21]

Understanding the process...   CL

 

 

 

 

 

[yota691]

WE WILL WIN!
6,708 views•Dec 10, 2020

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

8 hours ago, 8th ID said:

If the SC throws it out then they are part of the problem too and I am for an all out war against all traitors of the constitution. However, I believe there are some good constitutional justices on the court that will do the right thing according to the constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts is the only one to make the decision whether to take a case or not. And he is so compromised because of his lust for children on Epstein island. I wouldn't be surprised if he refuses the case. 

 

Nevertheless, such an act would leave POTUS and the military only one choice. 

MARTIAL LAW. 

 

And it would leave them that choice simply because of your exact words. Millions of Americans feel exactly the same way. And Trump and the military know it. 

 

Guess what else they know. 

They know that the very last thing they want to have to deal with is 50 million heavily armed Redneck Americans HIGHLY PI$$ED off and EXTREMELY motivated to remove the evil among us. 

 

TRUMP WILL TAKE ACTION. 

[Shabibilicious]

14 hours ago, Markinsa said:

 

I just realized the question in the first paragraph will be null if President Trump is allowed to intervene, because President Trump does have standing.

 

Hmmm....if Trump has standing, then the justices he directly nominated to the bench should recuse themselves due to conflict of interest, ethically speaking, that is.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

10 hours ago, 8th ID said:

If the SC throws it out then they are part of the problem too and I am for an all out war against all traitors of the constitution. However, I believe there are some good constitutional justices on the court that will do the right thing according to the constitution.

 

Conservatives have a 6-3 advantage....2 would have to flip.  So which 2 conservative justices would that be in your mind?  And what happens if the SCOTUS simply dismisses the case, which would indicate a unanimous decision?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Markinsa]

4 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Hmmm....if Trump has standing, then the justices he directly nominated to the bench should recuse themselves due to conflict of interest, ethically speaking, that is.

 

How is there a conflict of interest?  Trump can't remove them from the bench.  They've been appointed for life.

 

.

[Shabibilicious]

7 minutes ago, Markinsa said:

 

How is there a conflict of interest?  Trump can't remove them from the bench.  They've been appointed for life.

 

 

It's a conflict of interest because Trump placed them there, for life....those three judges ruling on a case concerning his political life is certainly a conflict of interest....I scratched your back, time for you three to return the favor, so to speak.  That's the exact reason Trump's base wanted this case in the SCOTUS....they believe those justices owe him, with no regard for the constitution whatsoever.  As always, just my opinion. 

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited December 11, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Theseus]

'The Big One' Gets Bigger: 15 Michigan Legislators Join Texas Election Lawsuit

 

BY TYLER O'NEIL DEC 10, 2020 10:16 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  Share  

 

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

On Thursday, 15 Republican legislators in Michigan filed a motion in support of Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R-Texas) lawsuit challening the 2020 presidential election results in four key swing states, including Michigan. The legislators joined the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society in supporting the Texas lawsuit, which asks the Supreme Court to remand the election results to swing-state legislatures for review and potential reversal.

 

“The state legislature serves as an ‘insurance policy’ against election officials who abuse or misuse their power,” State Rep. Daire Rendon, one of the legislators who signed on to the brief, said in a statement. “And our election officials failed in their primary duty. They had one job — to follow Michigan election law as it is written, not as they wish it to be — and they failed it.”

In addition to Rendon, the Michigan legislators on the brief include: Julie Alexander, Matt Maddox, Beth Griffin, John Reilly, Gary Elsen, Joe Bellino, Bronna Kahle, Luke Meerman, Doug Wozniak, Michele Hoitenga, Brad Paquette, Greg Markkanen, Jack O’Malley, and Rodney Wakeman.

Seventeen other states have joined Texas in its lawsuit, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. President Donald Trump himself filed a motion to intervene on Wednesday.

The Texas lawsuit accuses swing-state officials of breaking the law in three ways: changing election process in violation of laws duly passed by signed legislatures; giving voters more favorable treatment if they live in heavily Democratic areas; and the relaxation of ballot-integrity protections.

‘The Big One’: Trump Will Join Texas Lawsuit to Block ‘Unlawful Election Results’ in Swing States

The Amistad Project filing also argues that local election officials in Michigan and other states created a two-tiered election system by accepting private funds from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which distributed $350 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in order to impact the 2020 election.

Rendon told PJ Media that the filing will support established election law. “By slowing down the process of casting our electoral votes, we can address all the alleged issues of improprieties, irregularities, and illegalities to the satisfaction of the voters and make sure that only legal votes were counted,” she said.

“Just today, I received over 1300 emails asking me to intercede in the certification of the votes cast here in Michigan,” Rendon told PJ Media.

The Michigan Republican also responded to potential concerns that the state legislature choosing electors — rather than the voters — would be seen as a subversion of democracy.

“Most people do not realize that state legislators have plenary power given to them under the Constitution,” Rendon explained. “These powers are bestowed on the state legislators so that they can make the laws that pertain to our election.  Election laws in particular are real established laws that must be followed in every township, precinct, city and county.”

“No one, with the exception of the state legislature, has the power to change them or interpret them,” she argued. “Not the secretary of State, nor the governor, nor anyone in the Executive branch. If these laws are not followed uniformly throughout our state polling places, we must identify where our existing laws have been broken and right the process before we can allow the electors to cast their ballots. Our electoral votes must be based on a process that the voters have confidence in.”

Rendon argued that by joining Texas in challenging the election results, she and her colleagues were defending the separation of powers in Michigan. The Constitution gave Michigan legislators “plenary powers” over how states will choose electors to decide the presidency. “By taking this stand, we are preserving our right to use these powers, as needed, for this election and at any future time our election process may be disputed in the future.”

EXPLOSIVE: Texas Asks Supreme Court to Block ‘Unlawful Election Results’ in Swing States

“The voters deserve to have confidence that our election process is not corrupted, that the laws we have in place to protect election integrity will be followed, no matter what precinct you live in,” Rendon argued.

Paxton’s lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to block certification of election results, to direct swing-state legislatures to review the results, and direct the legislatures to award electors based on legal ballots only. Such an order would fall in line with the legislative strategy President Donald Trump’s attorneys Jenna Ellis and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have supported.

On Monday, Ellis outlined the strategy, predicting that state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will independently investigate the election results and flip the electors from Joe Biden to Trump.

Republicans hold an edge over Democrats in each of the states mentioned. Ellis mentioned Arizona (11 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (31 seats to 29 seats) and the Senate (17 seats to 13 seats). Both Ellis and Paxton noted Georgia (16 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (103 seats to 75 seats) and the Senate (35 seats to 21 seats); Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (113 seats to 90 seats) and the Senate (28 seats to 21 seats); and Michigan (16 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (58 seats to 52 seats) and the Senate (22 seats to 16 seats). Paxton mentioned Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), where Republicans control the State Assembly (63 seats to 35 seats) and the Senate (19 seats to 14 seats).

If the legislatures in states Jenna Ellis named flip for Trump, that would represent 63 electoral votes, flipping the election from 306 electoral votes for Biden and 232 for Trump to 295 electoral votes for Trump and 243 for Biden. If the legislatures in states Paxton named flip for Trump, that would represent 62 electoral votes, flipping the election from 306 electoral votes for Biden and 232 for Trump to 294 electoral votes for Trump and 244 for Biden.

Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky noted the strength of Texas’ claims, but he warned that the Supreme Court “may be extremely leery and disinclined” to take up the “unprecedented lawsuit.”

“Texas does a good job of describing what happened in each state and why the actions of government officials making unauthorized, unilateral changes in the rules may have violated the Constitution and affected the outcome of the election,” von Spakovsky notes. “But by almost any measure, this is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. While the questions raised are serious ones, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address them at this time.”

[Theseus]

'The Big One': Trump Will Join Texas Lawsuit to Block 'Unlawful Election Results' in Swing States

 

BY TYLER O'NEIL DEC 09, 2020 3:59 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  Share  

 

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced he would join the explosive case Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-Texas) filed at the Supreme Court this week. No fewer than seventeen other states also urged the Supreme Court to take up the case. Paxton’s case urges the Court to block swing states from certifying “unlawful election results,” to remand the election to state legislatures for review, and to direct the legislatures to reverse the unlawful actions of election officials by choosing Electoral College electors themselves.

 

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one,” the president announced on Twitter. “Our Country needs a victory!”

It remains unclear exactly how Trump and his legal team aim to intervene in the case. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari and take up the case, Trump could file an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief, but the promise to “intervene” seems more aggressive than that.

On Wednesday, Missouri led a group of 17 states in filing a brief that echoes the Texas claims. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined the Missouri brief.

“The Bill of Complaint alleges that non-legislative actors in each Defendant State unconstitutionally abolished or diluted statutory safeguards against fraud enacted by their state Legislatures, in violation of the Presidential Electors Clause,” the brief states, Fox News reported.

“All the unconstitutional changes to election procedures identified in the Bill of Complaint have two common features: (1) They abrogated statutory safeguards against fraud that responsible observers have long recommended for voting by mail, and (2) they did so in a way that predictably conferred partisan advantage on one candidate in the Presidential election,” the brief alleges.

Paxton’s case contests the results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

“As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States,” Paxton argues in the brief. The Texas brief lists three kinds of violations of federal law:

Non-legislative actors’  purported amendments to  States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.

Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.

The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.

These three broad claims echo many of the Trump campaign’s lawsuits challenging the presidential election results in those states.

EXPLOSIVE: Texas Asks Supreme Court to Block ‘Unlawful Election Results’ in Swing States

The Electors Clause in the U.S. Constitution states that only state legislatures may direct how states choose electors in the Electoral College. Election officials allegedly violated that clause by altering election procedures in violation of state law (enacted by the legislatures), ostensibly in order to help people vote during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.

State elections officials also treated some voters more favorably in more Democratic-leaning areas of states, helped in that effort by the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), an organization that directed funds to election officials in such areas.

Finally, while many election officials relaxed voting standards in order to help voters worried about COVID-19, those relaxed standards made potential fraud more likely.

“All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law,” Paxton’s brief argues, citing Bush v. Gore (2000).

Texas “respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law.”

Importantly, Paxton claims that “these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to block certification of election results, to direct swing-state legislatures to review the results, and direct the legislatures to award electors based on legal ballots only. Such an order would fall in line with the legislative strategy President Donald Trump’s attorneys Jenna Ellis and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have supported.

On Monday, Ellis outlined the strategy, predicting that state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will independently investigate the election results and flip the electors from Joe Biden to Trump.

Republicans hold an edge over Democrats in each of the states mentioned. Ellis mentioned Arizona (11 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (31 seats to 29 seats) and the Senate (17 seats to 13 seats). Both Ellis and Paxton noted Georgia (16 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (103 seats to 75 seats) and the Senate (35 seats to 21 seats); Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (113 seats to 90 seats) and the Senate (28 seats to 21 seats); and Michigan (16 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (58 seats to 52 seats) and the Senate (22 seats to 16 seats). Paxton mentioned Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), where Republicans control the State Assembly (63 seats to 35 seats) and the Senate (19 seats to 14 seats).

If the legislatures in states Jenna Ellis named flip for Trump, that would represent 63 electoral votes, flipping the election from 306 electoral votes for Biden and 232 for Trump to 295 electoral votes for Trump and 243 for Biden. If the legislatures in states Paxton named flip for Trump, that would represent 62 electoral votes, flipping the election from 306 electoral votes for Biden and 232 for Trump to 294 electoral votes for Trump and 244 for Biden.

Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky noted the strength of Texas’ claims, but he warned that the Supreme Court “may be extremely leery and disinclined” to take up the “unprecedented lawsuit.”

“Texas does a good job of describing what happened in each state and why the actions of government officials making unauthorized, unilateral changes in the rules may have violated the Constitution and affected the outcome of the election,” von Spakovsky notes. “But by almost any measure, this is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. While the questions raised are serious ones, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address them at this time.”

Trump may intend to add gravitas to the Texas suit, but his move to intervene may make the lawsuit appear even more political. I would like to see the Supreme Court take up this case, but the Court rejects far more cases than it takes up, and many justices are leery of getting involved in election matters.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

3 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Hmmm....if Trump has standing, then the justices he directly nominated to the bench should recuse themselves due to conflict of interest, ethically speaking, that is.

 

GO RV, then BV

Liberals do so love to change the rules in order to win. 

[Shabibilicious]

1 minute ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Liberals do so love to change the rules in order to win. 

 

We're about to see what the Conservative controlled SCOTUS thinks about your claim here.

 

GO RV, then BV