"The Stage Has Been Set For An Epic Battle Between
Red States And Blue States At The Supreme Court"
by Michael Snyder
"We have never seen anything like Texas v. Pennsylvania in the history of the Supreme Court. A very large group of red states has lined up behind Texas, and a very large group of blue states is backing the other side. I cannot recall another Supreme Court case in which so many states have sought to be involved on some level, and so to me it would be unthinkable for the Supreme Court to try to slap this suit away as if it was insignificant. The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so if the Supreme Court is not willing to properly deal with the grievances that the red states have there is no other place for them to go.
I believe that the Supreme Court is going to handle this case with the seriousness that it deserves, and that means that we are about to witness an absolutely epic legal battle between red states and blue states.
In an article that I published yesterday, I explained that the Court had required the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to file their responses by Thursday at 3 PM, and that is precisely what happened. But a whole bunch of other parties decided to get involved in this case as well. The following are all of the updates that were posted on the Supreme Court website on Thursday alone:
• Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief not accepted for filing. (December 10, 2020) (corrected motion electronically filed)
• Response to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or stay from defendant Wisconsin filed.
• Opposition to Texas’s motion for leave to file bill of complaint and its motion for preliminary relief from defendant Georgia filed.
• Opposition to motions for leave to file bill of complaint and for injunctive relief from defendant Michigan filed.
• Opposition to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or stay from defendant Pennsylvania filed.
• Motion for leave to file amicus brief from the District of Columbia on behalf of 22 States and Territories filed.
• Motion to Intervene and Proposed Bill of Complaint in Intervention of State of Missouri submitted.
• Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
• Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief for Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Defendants of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly submitted.
• Motion of Certain Select Pennsylvania State Senators for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
• Motion of Christian Family Coalition for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
• Amicus brief of Bryan Cutler Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Kerry Benninghoff Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives submitted.
• For Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.
• Motion of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
• Motion of Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin, Senator Lora Reinbold, Representative David Eastment, et al. (Elected State Officials) for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
• Amicus brief of City of Detroit submitted.
• Motion for Leave to File and Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff submitted.
• Complaint in Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.
• Amicus brief of Ga. state Sen. William Ligon et al. submitted.
• Motion of L. Lin Wood for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
• Motion of Steve Bullock, in his official capacity as Governor of Montana for leave to file amicus brief submitted.
I have never seen a flurry of activity like this for any other Supreme Court case. As you look over that list, you will see that there are all sorts of big names on there and nearly all states are represented in at least some capacity. But there is one huge name that is completely missing. For some reason, Joe Biden has decided not to be involved in this case at all. I think that Joe Biden’s lawyers are telling him that it would give the case credibility if they got involved and they don’t want to do that.
But to me, this is a major tactical mistake on their part. If Texas wins this case, Joe Biden will probably not be the one sitting in the Oval Office for the next four years. With so much on the line, if I was a presidential candidate I would want to make sure that my interests were being represented properly in this case.
In any event, this case is moving forward, and the outcome will make history no matter which way it goes.
Needless to say, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia are very upset about the suit that Texas has filed. In fact, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro went so far as to call the suit a “seditious abuse of the judicial process”: "The Pennsylvania AG’s office described the Texas suit as a crass political maneuver to extend Trump’s term. ‘Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,’ they urged."
Of course that is a bunch of nonsense. As I detailed yesterday, Texas is alleging very serious violations of the Electors Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in all four states, and the evidence clearly shows that those constitutional violations did indeed take place.
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia would have us believe that Texas and other red states were not harmed by these constitutional violations, and they would have us believe that the Supreme Court could not possibly take any action even if there were constitutional violations because that would “disenfranchise” millions of voters. But it wouldn’t disenfranchise those voters if the Court ordered new elections in those four states, and that is what I believe is the appropriate remedy in this case. I know that is a minority viewpoint, but I am sticking with it.
On Thursday, the District of Columbia, 20 blue states, the Virgin Islands and Guam filed an amicus brief in support of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.
An amicus brief had already been filed by a coalition of red states on Wednesday, and on Thursday six of them actually asked the court to allow them to become co-plaintiffs: "Missouri on Wednesday led a group of 17 states in filing a brief that supported the Texas lawsuit, which alleges that the four key swing states that voted for President-elect Joe Biden violated the Constitution by having their judicial and executive branches make changes to their presidential elections rather than their legislatures."
But the Thursday filing led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, which also includes Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, would make those states parties before the court in the case rather than just outside voices weighing in. President Trump’s campaign did the same on Wednesday. Subsequently, 106 Republican members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of Texas. That has got to carry a lot of weight with the Court.
At this point, the Court is essentially boxed into a corner. If they throw this case aside very quickly, that will cause a massive uproar on the right. But if they actually allow oral arguments and give this case the attention that it deserves, that will cause a massive uproar on the left. Whatever they do, about half the country is going to be exceedingly angry. And if Texas v. Pennsylvania ultimately results in Trump winning the election, we will witness a national temper tantrum that will shake our nation to the core.
We have reached one of the most critical moments in American history, and the future of our Republic hangs in the balance. Historically, the Supreme Court likes to try to find an easy way out, and they may be very tempted to try to dispose of this case very quickly. But that wouldn’t solve anything. I think that it is a very ominous sign that there is so much open animosity between red states and blue states now. Just like we witnessed prior to the Civil War, states are picking one side or the other, and talk of secession is starting to pick up steam. In fact, it was the top headline on the Drudge Report on Thursday morning.
And if the Supreme Court ignores the clear constitutional violations that occurred during this election, that will only make things a lot worse. As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in his complaint, either we have a Constitution or we don’t. That is what Texas v. Pennsylvania is really all about, and in a few days we will have a clear answer to that question."
○
READ: "If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and his allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania, what happens next?"
No comments:
Post a Comment