Will SCOTUS Defend Republic or Criminal Coup?
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
December 10, 2020
As of 3:12 PM 12/9/20; The Gateway Pundit reports SEVENTEEN States joined Texas in suing Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over Election UNCONSTITUTIONAL issues directly to SCOTUS. (My opinion: Nevada and Arizona should be included as culprits.)
I am cross posting three articles beginning with the article by TGP. This will be followed by an Epoch Times article touching on President Trump’s perspective. Which will be followed by a Just The News article examining a Constitutional application of the Texas-Plus lawsuit.
Hopefully more States demand SCOTUS end this Dem-Marxist Election criminality AND a bunch of Patriots swamp the SCOTUS building in peaceful (UNLESS the Dem-Marxist paramilitary Antifa/BLM show up) protest.
JRH 12/10/20
I need your generosity via – credit, check
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:
Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –
OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
******************************
UPDATE: 17 States Join Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Over Fraudulent Election
17 States (including TX) Join Lawsuit to SCOTUS (MO hasn’t been updated to red on map yet) – Map by Henri
By Jim Hoft
Published December 9, 2020 at 3:12pm
The Gateway Pundit
earlier today TGP reported that Missouri is the latest state to join Texas in their lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at the US Supreme Court.
It’s not just Missouri, on Tuesday Allen West told Steve Bannon on the War Room, “I think you’re going to see ten states sign on to this petition and lawsuit. I know as you said Louisiana just came on board.”
Seven states have already reportedly joined Texas in their lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
And the list has now grown to 17 states.
MO, AL, AR, FL, NE, ND, OK, IN, KS, LA, MS, MT, SC, SD, TN, UT and WV.
Here is a Scribd document of the lawsuit.
Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump Says He Will Intervene in Texas’ SCOTUS Election Case
An American flag waves in front of the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 2, 2020. (Patrick Semansky/AP Photo)
By TOM OZIMEK
December 9, 2020 Updated: December 9, 2020
The Epoch Times
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and/or members of his legal team would join, as intervenors, the lawsuit brought by Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton to the U.S. Supreme Court against four battleground states.
“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump said in a tweet.
An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.
In the lawsuit, Texas is alleging that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced last-minute unconstitutional changes to election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The lawsuit is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution.
The suit, filed on Dec. 7 and docketed the next day, is also seeking to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.
Trump’s remarks about joining the suit as an intervenor came after several states expressed their support for the lawsuit. Attorneys general for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana have issued statements in support of Paxton’s motion.
On Tuesday, the president wondered if lawmakers or judges have the courage to help him challenge election results in key battleground states.
“Let’s see whether or not somebody has the courage—whether it’s a legislator or legislatures, or whether it’s a justice of the Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court. Let’s see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right,” Trump told a press conference in Washington during a summit on COVID-19 vaccines.
In the complaint to the Supreme Court, Paxton argues that the four battleground states had acted in a way that violated their own election laws and thereby breached the Constitution through enacting and implementing new measures, rules, and procedures right before the Nov. 3 election.
In some instances, the defendant states enacted such measures through the use of so-called friendly lawsuits, in which the plaintiff and the defendant collude to procure a court order, the lawsuit alleges. In other instances, a variety of state election officials allegedly exceeded their authority to promulgate rules and procedures that should have been enacted by each state’s legislature, as required by the Constitution’s Elections and Electors clause.
“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.
Attorneys general from the defendant states have disputed the allegations in the lawsuit.
Paxton argued that the actions he outlined in his complaint “constitute non-legislative changes to State election law by executive-branch State election officials, or by judicial officials” and, as such, votes cast by Electoral College electors pursuant to these actions should not be considered constitutionally valid.
Texas is also asking the Supreme Court (pdf) to grant a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.
The court has ordered the defendant states to respond to Texas’s motions by 3 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 10.
Janita Kan contributed to this report.
Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Texas files lawsuit directly to Supreme Court challenging election results in four states
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argues WI, MI, PA and GA made changes to election rules without legislative consent, violating the U.S. Constitution
By John Solomon and Carrie Sheffield
Updated: December 8, 2020 – 3:49pm
Just The News
In a novel legal strike, the state of Texas has asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia, arguing officials in those four battleground states violated the Constitution by making changes to how ballots were cast and counted without legislative approval.
The lawsuit filed late Monday night by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the justices to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the states “from taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
The suit argues that changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
“I’m worried about the credibility of elections, not just right now, but I’m worried about the credibility of elections going forward,” Paxton told Just the News on Tuesday afternoon in a phone interview. “I’m not making a fraud argument, I’m making an argument based on the Constitution. And what we know happened, which was that we know state law was changed by people other than the state legislature, which is the only constitutionally authorized changes that are allowed … My argument is that the law was violated, the constitution was violated. I’m not addressing whether there was 2 million fraudulent ballots cast in Pennsylvania. I don’t know, and there’s no way to know, the way the system got set up, the way the rules got changed.”
States are allowed in certain circumstances to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing lower federal courts, in disputes involving other states. Paxton argued the state of Texas was wrongly harmed by the unconstitutional acts of the other states.
“These non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution,” the suit stated. “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”
You can read the full lawsuit here:
Texas Lawsuit 12 – 8- 20.pdf
Paxton said the defendant states may have had good intentions in making changes to the elections to address COVID-19 but nonetheless violated the Constitution, requiring a dramatic remedy.
“Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting,” the suit argued. “The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect they made the 2020
election less secure in the Defendant States.”
The lawsuit was backed by the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project, a conservative group that has taken the national lead in challenging election irregularities in 2020. “The lawless nature of the 2020 election is on full display in the suit filed by Texas,” Amistad director Phill Kline said. “There was a coordinated and unprecedented effort of private interests improperly joining with leftist government officials to illegally support the democrat ticket in this election. This involved the sharing of sensitive citizen information with the private sector and the flow of more than $500 million from the private sector to targeted government officials and local governments.”
Paxton told Just the News he did not rely on research from the Amistad Project in his lawsuit and as of Tuesday afternoon had not spoken with other states about the issue but anticipated he could when he arrives in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. Paxton’s scheduled to meet with President Trump on a pre-arranged meeting.
Paxton rejected interpretations of stare decisis arguments saying that some states have wrongly trying to redefine who has constitutional authority over running elections in order to sow chaos and delay a clear presidential election result.
“I know what the Constitution requires, and it’s always required that,” Paxton said. “It’s the Constitution, so if case law says that the Constitution shouldn’t be the Constitution, well, I think that case law’s wrong.”
However, Paxton said he is hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court — including with the newly-sworn Justice Amy Coney Barrett to possibly tip the balance — will ultimately restore Constitutional order under a strict textualist reading that prohibits what Paxton said was last-minute judicial usurpation of the prerogatives of state legislatures to make election rules.
“I’m always for reading based on what the Framers meant, otherwise we don’t really have a Constitution if it’s just nine judges up there and they can make up whatever they want,” Paxton said. “We don’t really have a Constitution, we just have a ruling oligarchy of nine judges. And I’m in favor of judges who aren’t making the law for us and telling us what to do. I’m in favor of judges who are put there, they look at the law as it was written, whether by a legislature by the Founders, and they follow it. That’s their job.”
___________________________
UPDATE: 17 States Join Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Over Fraudulent Election
© 2020 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.
__________________________
Trump Says He Will Intervene in Texas’ SCOTUS Election Case
Copyright © 2000 – 2020 The Epoch Times
_________________________________
Texas files lawsuit directly to Supreme Court challenging election results in four states
Just The News
© 2020 Bentley Media Group, LLC
ABOUT Just The News
Like this:
Like Loading...
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
