Missouri, 17 other states file supporting Texas suit to delay presidential elector appointment" foxnews

"Missouri led a group of 17 states that Wednesday afternoon filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Texas lawsuit aimed at delaying the appointment of presidential electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

The brief mirrors the argument of the Texas suit in saying that the states acted unconstitutionally when either their judiciaries or executive branches changed their elections laws. The Texas suit, and the states that support it, say that only state legislatures may set laws regarding how states appoint their presidential electors. 

"The integrity of our elections is of critical importance to maintaining our republic, both today and in future elections,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement. “The stakes of protecting our Constitution, defending our liberty and ensuring that all votes are counted fairly couldn’t be higher. With this brief, we are joining the fight."

The Trump campaign also filed a brief asking to join on the Texas suit on Wednesday.

"The illegal suspension or violation of state law thus calls directly into question the certification of the results of the elections in Defendant States for Vice President Joe Biden, Proposed Plaintiff in Intervention’s opponent in the election," its brief said. "President Trump’s interest in the outcome of this litigation could therefore not be more acute."

The brief filed by Missouri and the other states, which is officially a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, also warns that the changes enacted by the state executives and judicial branches opened the states' elections up to potential fraud."  foxnews

------------

It appears to me that the Democrats in all their varied glory have become subversive of the Constitution except in so far as it supports the creation of a sham republic like the Soviet Union.  We will now see if SCOTUS will save us from that.  pl 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missouri-16-other-states-file-brief-supporting-texas-suit-to-delay-presidential-elector-appointment

Comments

[Fred]

"a sham republic like the Soviet Union."

All the unconstitutional 'stay at home orders', mask mandates and declaring businesses (almost uniformly small independent competitors of multinationals or other big business) 'non-essential' has been giving everyone a taste of Democratic Socialism. This is looking more and more like a Color Revolution in action. I notice that there's been essentially no action from the left's trained street thugs - Antifa/BLM. Just like they are held in reserve to explode at the most opportune time to create an excuse for the deep state to complete their takeover.

[Bill H]

This is beginning to look like something that, maybe, the Supreme Court cannot ignore.

[J]

Pence could reject contested electors under 12th Amendment

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/law-professors-pence-could-reject-contested-electors-under-12th-amendment

[J]

Texas SCOTUS filing

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

[Johny Conspiranoid]

"has been giving everyone a taste of Democratic Socialism"
This is nothing like democratic socialism.
"I notice that there's been essentially no action from the left's trained street thugs - Antifa/BLM"
Because they are Soros stooge astroturf working for very rich people.
"more and more like a Color Revolution" Yes, its looked that way from about a year ago. Chickens comming home to roost?

[Tom]

I read that as more than a request to the scotus to stop the steal. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but it reads to me like an acknowledgment that should the four states not be held to constitutional account, then those 17 states will stop following the constitution as well. The very valid point was made that the constitution is essentially an agreement between the states. Either they all abide, or none will. If the scotus punts and Biden becomes president, it will not be of 50 states. Worse than that, over 75 million folks voted for Trump. This is a significant portion of the us population who are against this outcome. They will not sit quietly by and accept this outcome.

[Barbara Ann]

So battle lines a drawn, nothing as clear cut as a Mason–Dixon line this time. I guess if the SCOTUS ducks this it will at least be clear what its views are re the worth of the Constitution. Is Google/YouTube now going to censor all reference to a lawsuit supported by 18 states and perhaps ban the search term "Federal Republic"? Oh I do hope they try.

[TheUnready]

A Chinese view on how America is actually run:

https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/12/theory-practice-of-grand-strategy-di.html

[Degringolade]

I always try to spend time reading both sides. As I hang out here a lot, my views are pretty obvious, but I do spend time reading what the other side says.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/10/seeking-biggest-incident-voter-nullification-us-history-18-republican-ags-back-texas

They are presenting idea that eighteen States Attorneys General have requested the Supreme Court to review the results of a federal election as an attack on the constitution.

Run that by me again.

Last time I looked, the outline of how this was approached was put together by some pretty smart folks who have bothered to read the constitution.

[Deap]

We are in a very organic, nutrient rich time in our relationship with our governing documents. We are now living a shared history with our Founders 230 year old voices.

What the heck does that signed piece of paper actually say? Tis an easy read on its face. Good time for a renewal of vows.

[Deap]

The Constitution of the United States Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

1. Establish Justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defence
4. Promote the general Welfare
5. Secure the Blessing of Liberty

......to ourselves and our Posterity.

Honest and fair elections .......insure domestic tranquility.

[Mark K Logan]

It's a safe bet the SCOTUS will not. They had their chance and the answer was perhaps the briefest, clearest "FU" in the history of SCOTUS rulings, penned by none other than Scalito himself and with no dissenting opinions, not from Clarence, not from Amy, not even from Kavanagh. The problem is lack of evidence to back the assertions of fraud and after the recounts there is even less of that to be had.

The only viable option may be Flynn's 'declare martial law' idea.

[akaPatience]

Is it me or have any others sensed a rush to establish the perception of Biden as victor? First there was the ridiculous "Office of President-Elect" with all of its presidential trappings, then prospective cabinet appointees were quickly floated or named, policy stances pronounced, etc. It's as though the thieves are setting up the narrative that if their cheating is exposed and justly remedied, they'll be the aggrieved ones - that victory was stolen from THEM and not the other way around. In short, it's all been a continuance of the usual leftist projection.

[Steve Kaczecka]

In 12 hours Trump will get another big FU

[Fred]

Mark,

Roberts, to his everlasting shame, has put the court in a credibility losing position by his prior 4-4 ruling. The state of Texas, joined by one third of the states in the union, were not party to prior suits including whichever one you are referring to. If they were not going to make a ruling on the unconstitutional actions of four other states then they would not have ordered AZ, GA, MI, and PA to respond. I for one am looking forward to what those 4 bastions of integrity and equality have to say - in writing - for all of posterity to see the wisdom and righteousness of their cause.

[JohninMK]

It might be even simpler. The following is a quote

Elections undecided by midnight are void & preempted by federal law – Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Decision)

“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 71-72 (1997)

https://yournews.com/2020/12/08/1956812/elections-undecided-by-midnight-are-void/

[stueeeeeeeee]

Mark K Logan

The Texas lawsuit is not about voter fraud. It concerns the process of elections. Texas has a strong case. It is undeniable that the executive and judicial branches of the named states illegally changed election laws/procedures without legislative approval. The law is on Texas's side.

The problem is the remedy. The courts/SCOTUS do not want to invalidate the results. How can they rule in Texas's favor without invalidating the results? They can't. Their ruling will likely have lofty language that will pay lip service to federalism and state's rights and may even reproach the offending states, but will do nothing to change the results.

I believe the SCOTUS should invalidate the results, because election law/process was circumvented by the offending states. As a consequence and as Texas has asked, allow the state legislatures to appoint the electors.

All of this maybe for nothing. There is no guarantee that those state legislature appointed electors will vote for Trump, because the Republican party of the offending states have been complicit in allowing the illegal changes to election law/process. Here in GA, the Rep secretary of state and Rep governor had sign an illegal consent agreement with the Democrats that liberalized the absentee/mail in voting process. Rejection rates of ballots in the metro area fell from an average of 3% to 4% to 0.2%...even with fraudulent level of turnout.

Election is over. The coup was successful.

[Deap]

SCOTUS does not "invalidate the results" of a state's election. The states themselves invalidated the results when they chose to go rogue, rather than follow their own laws and the US Constitution.

SCOTUS has no duty to even recognize sham elections, therefore they do not "throw them out". SCOTUS just states the obvious - this was an invalid election based upon constitutional grounds because of X..Y...Z.

Can't hand someone a zirconium, and then demand they keep calling it a real diamond. What would be the point in that?

[Mark K Logan]

JohninMK,

Here's that decision. I'm not seeing that line about midnight deadline in it.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/522/67/

[Fred]

Stueeeee,

"because the Republican party of the offending states have been complicit in allowing the illegal changes to election law/process."

Those changes in mailing out ballots were by the Secretary of State in MI and in the extended dates for delivering and counting ballots by the SC of PA. I think you'll find similar non legislative driven or approved changes in WI and GA.

[English Outsider]

Deap - worried about your (2) - "Insure domestic tranquility."

On the previous occasion the Supreme Court heard a case of this nature, and though the substance of the case was different, it does seem that the Supreme Court was taking into account the effects on "domestic traquillity" in making their decision.

I submitted this link to the Colonel's site earlier -

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232784443.pdf

"Among an undogmatic judge's values may be the desire to depart from foolish consistency in a hard case, and he may "adopt an approach that is practical and instrumental"42 if it is necessary to render a useful decision that prevents an acute Constitutional crisis."

As said earlier - "Bluntly, and to a lay reader, it looks as if the Supreme Court chucks law out of the window and focusses on finding a decision that will cause the least fuss."

And there isn't much doubt that if the Biden election were not confirmed there'd be a hell of a fuss and a lot of vandalism and disorder. So declaring a bent election bent might not be something the Supreme Court would want to do.

[turcopolier]

EO

I have not failed to publish any of your comments. In fact the SCOTUS has heard quite few lawsuits among the states.

[Fred]

EO,

You should read the PA response to the case filed by PA. "Reeeeeeeee" best describes the opening summary.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

I think they'll have a hard time saying 46 states performed an election with voting ending on 11/3 but PA chose to give itself, being an 'equal' state in the Union, 3 extra days. You know, so they could ensure their preferred candidate would win. Though they didn't quite use that phrasing. I really liked the "PA law only requires observes be in the room" while votes are counted. Yes, and Rosa Parks was on the bus so what's all the fuss about comes to mind.

To make it even more interesting 18 states and the legislative branch of government of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania have joined with Texas. We should thank China for helping us 'live in interesting times'.

[JerseyJeffersonian]

Col. Lang & English Outsider,

Yes, Colonel, you are quite correct. In my last position of employment, I was a staffer at a university law school library. One of my duties was as clerk of government documents. This included filing of US Supreme Court decisions, one of which categories was reserved for "Original" cases. These consisted entirely of intra-state lawsuits, and these were stipulated under the US Constitution to be strictly handled and adjudicated by the US Supreme Court. From court session to court session, the number of such actions varied, but they were not infrequent. This action brought by Texas, and joined in an amicus brief by quite a few other states, is potentially quite momentous both on current, highly charged matters, as well as being a precedent setting case in the juridical decisions of the Republic.

Or, it could be a damp squib, should the Court choose to instead furrow its brow, and rhetorically shrug, gifting the citizenry with some sort of mendacious buck passing.

[Deap]

EO, so you claim we now extortion rule our country? And call that sell out "domestic tranquility". That we sell out 230 years of our "exceptionalism" to some sniveling brats from Portland? You misjudge the depth of opposition to these astro-turf mobs.

Take your argument out a few levels- rule by extortion, rule by threat of violence, or do you just hate America or are blinded by too much one-sided journalism that thinks the entire country is ready to explode when in fact it is a few inner city Democrat cesspits.

You might want to reach out to those neighborhoods most affected by the last waves of civil unrest and see how much appetite they have for more. You will be surprised to learn Trump was delivering on his promises to inner cities; whereas decades of failed Democrat leadership created the toxic stews in the first place.