Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

It’s over, Donald. You can go home now.

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Friday, December 11, 2020

In a 9-0 unanimous vote, the United States Supreme Court has handed the Narcissist in Chief his hat.

The court’s opinion may be read here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf
-or-
From this site here: SCOTUS TX Trump case 121120zr_p860

The decision in the case of TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., in which the Solicitor General for the State of Texas refused to sign onto, was short, sweet, and to the point.

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

The Current White House Occupant’s longtime friend Rudy Giuliani, and company (including the looney-tunes bad-conspiracy-peddling lady Sidney Powell), alleging fraud, tried in numerous states’ courts to have the certified election results overturned on the most inauspicious of grounds.

They failed in every one.

Even used coffee grounds would’ve had more substance than their arguments. Perhaps they should take a refresher course on the law, and maybe do a few practices before moot court.

What they called “fraud,” in the exceedingly vast majority of cases were simple clerical errors, minuscule issues, or minor oversights, and in no way was representative of any wholesale effort by any person, group, or organization to conduct or perpetrate fraud.

Every voting official in every beat, box, precinct, county, and state validated and verified that the election was conducted properly in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. And their statements were reinforced by the independent statement released by the nation’s top election security official with the Department of Homeland Security, as well as numerous other security and intelligence agencies which are charged with matters pertaining to national security.

I have previously written about the matter, as follows in part:

A highly publicized and now, all-too-common, firing-by-Tweet by the Banana Republican POS45 of the Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Chris Krebs, our nation’s top Election Security Official at the Department of Homeland Security occurred when Director Krebs had the unmitigated audacity to speak the truth to the monstrous authoritarian power of the Liar in Chief, the CWHO POS45, that,

There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes,
changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

And frankly, in every court in which the Manipulator in Chief has had his Rudy Giuliani-led Goon Squad appear, they have testified, sworn, or affirmed under oath that they are NOT alleging fraud. To be under oath, and then lie before a judge – to commit perjury – is a severe crime with enormously negative consequences, and for a lawyer to lie before a judge is even worse, because they could lose their license to practice law. Giuliani has not done that. He has not committed perjury. And if he, or any other member of his team is to be believed, then we – like all other judges in all other courts in which he has appeared in this matter – should believe him when he testified in every case that fraud is not involved.

U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, an Obama appointee who is a longtime Republican, questioned Giuliani about whether the case he was bringing was a fraud case. Giuliani said, “This is not a fraud case.”

Judge Brann scolded Giuliani saying, “You’re alleging that the two individual plaintiffs were denied the right to vote. But at bottom, you’re asking this court to invalidate more than 6.8 million votes, thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the Commonwealth. Could you tell me how this result could possibly be justified?”

There will be numerous articles written about the matter, and here are a few of the early ones.


Supreme Court Shuts Door On Trump Election Prospects

By Nina Totenberg, and Barbara Sprunt
December 11, 2020 6:38PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shuts-door-on-trump-election-prospects

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.

The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied “for lack of standing.”

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the court wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that in their view the court does “not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue,” Alito wrote.

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued four states where Biden had been certified the winner: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, was styled as “an original” case, pitting one state against another.

Paxton claimed that the targeted states made changes to election procedures due to the pandemic that violated federal law. He alleged the changes enabled voter fraud. And he asked the Supreme Court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for the Electoral College electors to cast ballots in those four states, contending that more time was needed to allow investigations of the election results.

Paxton’s suit came in the face of repeated findings by state officials, including Republican state officeholders, certifying the results as well as statements by U.S. Attorney General William Barr that the Justice Department did not find evidence of widespread fraud in this year’s election.

The Texas suit set in motion a cascade of legal motions at the high court. Not only did President Trump seek to join the Texas suit, so did 17 other states — all overwhelmingly won by Trump. More support would follow, including a brief filed by a majority of the GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Late Thursday the four targeted states struck back in briefs filed in the Supreme Court.

“Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next president of the United States,” wrote Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association. “That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected,” he said.

“Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do,” the state’s brief said. It “implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway.”

Pennsylvania was equally acerbic. “The court should not abide this seditious abuse of judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that that abuse must never be replicated,” it said in its brief. And Wisconsin said the Texas bid “to nullify [Wisconsin’s] choice [for president] is devoid of a legal foundation or factual basis.”

It was unclear how or why Paxton, the Texas attorney general, decided to carry Trump’s water in the case. Especially since all four targeted states have Republican-controlled legislatures, and to date, both state and federal courts at lower levels, including Trump-appointed judges, have found the fraud allegations baseless.

The unprecedented nature of the Paxton suit, plus the fact that the state’s chief appellate lawyer, Kyle Hawkins, did not sign the Texas brief as he usually would do, has spurred speculation that Paxton is seeking a pardon. He is currently under indictment over securities fraud, and is being investigated by the FBI on bribery and abuse of power allegations.

Although the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between states, such cases are rare, and are almost exclusively confined to disputes that can’t be handled by other courts, such as those over borders or water rights.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Biden. Trump distanced himself from the legal blow and hitched his wagon instead to the Texas lawsuit, calling it “the case that everyone has been waiting for.”

Trump reportedly had conversations with some of the Republican attorneys general who were meeting this week in Washington, urging them to support the Texas lawsuit. And several news organization reported that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, had agreed to represent Trump in the event the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case.

Initial reaction to the Texas suit, however, has been dismissive at best. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told CNN that he “frankly struggle[d] to understand the legal theory” of the suit, noting that election disputes in our system are “decided at the state and local level and not at the national level.”

The Texas suit had other problems. First is the question of legal standing. Essentially, how do Texas, or the states joining it, have legal standing to complain about the procedures for voting and counting votes in other states?

Next, the Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to delay the vote in four targeted states, but as professor Edward Foley of the Moritz College of Law, observes, the date for electors to cast their votes is set by federal law, under the Constitution, which requires that the day “shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The date chosen by Congress this year is Dec. 14.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, called Paxton’s lawsuit “dangerous garbage.”

“This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit,” he wrote.

“It’s too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not),” he wrote.

Benjamin Ginsburg, a longtime election law guru for the Republican Party, told CNN Wednesday that he didn’t think “for an instant” that the Supreme Court would consider taking up the case.

That said, with three Trump appointees on the court, and a newly strengthened 6-to-3 majority of very conservative Republican-appointed justices, Trump apparently believed that the Supreme Court would view the case differently than did “election experts” and Republican officials in the targeted states.

See also: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit Challenging Biden’s Victory
The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, sought to bar Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from casting their electoral votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.
By Adam Liptak, December 11, 2020 Updated 8:05 PM ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court-election-texas.html

See also: Supreme Court dismisses bid led by Texas attorney general to overturn the presidential election results, blocking Trump’s legal path to a reversal of his loss
By Robert Barnes, December 11, 2020 at 6:27 p.m. CST
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-texas-election-trump/2020/12/11/bf462f22-3bc6-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html

See also: Supreme Court rejects Republican attack on Biden victory
By NOMAAN MERCHANT, ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and MARK SHERMAN
2020-12-11 T05:25:55Z
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-lawsuits-elections-fe784086a81497dcfe38f0eb5bffd36d

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: