Thursday, December 10, 2020

The Texas case in the SCOTUS naming four battleground states as defendants because of how they conducted the 2020 election for POTUS picks up wide interest on all sides, including motions by many to be added as additional plaintiffs in the case

 
In addition to the original filing by the State of Texas, these are some of the other filings in that case of 'original jurisdiction" now before the U.S. Supreme Court:  


A motion by President Donald Trump  to intervene as an additional plaintiff, because his rights were negatively impacted by the unconstitutional acts of the defendants;


An amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief in support of Texas’s case by the state of Missouri, on its own behalf, and also on behalf of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia”;

 

An amici curiae brief filed by Carter Phillips and other “Never Trump” Republican opponents of the president, supporting Pennsylvania and the other defendant states;  


An amici curiae brief filed by Roy Moore and other “constitutional attorneys” in support of the  case brought by Texas;

 

An amicus curiae brief filed by Arizona, urging the Court to act expeditiously; 

 

Responses to the Texas filing by each of the defendant states, as requested by the Supreme Court;

  

An amici curiae brief filed by the District of Columbia and “States and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington” in support of Pennsylvania and the other defendant states;  


A motion by Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah to intervene as plaintiffs;

 

Two amicus curiae motions by members of the Pennsylvania house and senate, respectively, urging the Supreme Court to take up and hear the case brought by Texas;
  
An amicus curiae motion by the Christian Family Coalition in support of the Texas case; 


An amici curiae brief by the speaker and majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in support of the Texas case;  


A motion by “state legislators and voters” represented by the Justice Foundation and the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, seeking to intervene and join the case as plaintiffs; and their proposed complaint was also filed; 


An amici curiae brief by 105 Republican members of the House of Representatives in support of the Texas case;  
An amici curiae brief by elected officials from four states, individually in support of the Texas case;  


An amicus curiae brief by the City of Detroit in support of Pennsylvania and the other defendants;  and

  

An amicus curiae brief by the Justice and Freedom Fund in support of the case brought by the plaintiff Texas



The number of filings in just three days — including from Democrat leaning states and various groups on the left — for a case that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet said that it will take up and  hear  ---  might increase the chances that it will do so.  If so, there will be even more filings, or applications   >>>  to be sure.....

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its possible a decision will be out Friday evening.

Anonymous said...

It's possible a man in a red suit will come down my chimney on the 24th.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick skimming of a few of the briefs mentioned above shows that the pro-Texas arguments are based heavily upon the defendants' violations of both the U.S. Constitution's "Electors Clause" and the federal "election day" statute; whereas the opponents to the relief sought by Texas at the U.S. Supreme Court pretty much argue that Texas has no standing to bring its action, that the matter was not brought in a timely fashion, and that the relief Texas seeks against four other states is completely unprecedented and would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters whose votes were lawfully cast, lawfully counted, and lawfully certified, and all of that had been widely reported, and even litigated in various forums.

The opponents hardly even reference the defendant states' possible violations of U.S. Constitution and other federal election laws, including the arguments related to the federal "Election Day" statute.

Anonymous said...

Press said Texas AG was arguing that defs used COVID as an excuse. Did defs say much about COVID?

Anonymous said...

Its over. SCOTUS said so.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE "ONLY THING THAT SEEMS RIGHT FOR THESE TIMES" EDITION

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO BE WELL-GROUNDED AND HAVE A FAITH IN CERTAIN THINGS WHEN PEOPLE LIKE THE JUSTICES OF THE SCOTUS LET YOU DOWN AND DON'T DO THE RIGHT THING >>> LIKE FOLLOW THEIR JOINT, SEVERAL AND COLLECTIVE OATHS OF OFFICE

NONETHELESS, THERE IS NO SITUATION THAT CANNOT BE IMPROVED WITH JUST THE RIGHT SONG:


[Cue Sammy]
"The party's over, it's time to call it a day
They've burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up
The piper must be paid

The party's over, the candles flicker and dim
You danced and dreamed through the night
It seemed to be right just being with him
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party's over
It's all over, my friend

The party's over, it's time to call it a day
They've burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
Take off your makeup, the party's over
It's all over, my friend

It's all over, my friend....."

Anonymous said...

Roy Orbison did the best its over.

Anonymous said...

Another kick in the ass in Wisconsin. Brett Ludwig, who Trump appointed, dismissed Trumps case on the merits. However, Rudy will still be on Maria Bartiromos show on sunday explaining that hes just getting warmed up.

Anonymous said...

The judiciary in the USA is no better than the judiciary was in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. It's also no better than the courts in Russia in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc., etc., etc. or England anytime from the days of Blackstone to the present. The courts and the judges in the courts have always been a craven, cowardly and corrupt lot; willing to do anything to maintain its own little corner of influence and semblance of power. Judges are the willing lapdogs of tyrants and tyrannical mobsters and racketeers who run the panoply of mobs throughout our society.

Anonymous said...

They aren't called 'the court' for nothing