RSS

Sore losers: 17 deep-red states ask Supreme Court to throw out election

“Seventeen states whose elections were won by President Donald Trump told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they support Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s bid to file a lawsuit that could effectively reverse President-elect Joe Biden’s projected Electoral College victory,” CNBC reported on December 9, 2020. All those states have Republican attorney generals. Read story here.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat whose very blue state voted for Biden 2-to-1 over Trump, called the lawsuit “a cesspool of disproved charges, wild speculation, insupportable arguments and silly gibberish.” On top of that, the Republican who filed it, Ken Paxton (photo, left), has been indicted on securities fraud charges. In other words, the guy is a crook.

This is what most Republicans are today, folks. Disrespectful of your right to vote, purveyors of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. It’s not just Trump who’s trying to overthrow our democracy and turn America into a banana republic ruled by an unelected dictator. You can’t vote for this party, no matter what your differences with Democrats are. They’re trying to take away your freedom.

P.S., This lawsuit isn’t going anywhere, and you shouldn’t worry about it, but we’ll still have to live with their bad attitude.

Return to The-Ave.US Home Page


0 Comments Add Yours ↓

  1. Mark Adams #
    1

    Loking at the US constitution the question is whether the court can merely decline to take it up. This is a situation where the court is the trial court. The court does make its own agenda, but in at least two recent cases at least tow judges ave said the court cannot simply refuse to hear these kind of cases since the court is the trial court. It must at least accept the case and have at least a hearing if not a trial. It cannot just deny hearing the case.

    If it does not hear the case there will be a fight when Congress counts the electoral votes. So it maybe good if the court has a hearing and determines if the suit has merit. It could well find there is merit because the question is one of law, not just whether there were enough votes are reversed to overturn. Which may well require the court to invalidate one or more elections. If the court validates then Congress one of the political branches still can contest the result and be political, but may be in a better position to constrain itself or find the court has put the resolution to a solution in its political hands with the solution found within the US Constitution. With a possible result being President Trump and VP Harris or a President Biden and VP Pence a result that may make everyone happy. Biden can fully admit he is a Republican in Democratic clothing nd be relieved of any socialist trimmings he did not firmly beat during the Democratic primaries.

  2. Roger Rabbit #
    2

    Const. Art. III §2 only gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction as “to Controversies between two or more States;” it doesn’t require the Court to accept such cases. It indeed can “just deny hearing the case,” and will, because the plaintiffs lack standing, the complaint is untimely, and lacks merit. This case will be dismissed. Suggesting there’s a case to be made despite the absence of any evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ allegations would get you laughed out of a law school class. It’s not the Court’s role to “validate” elections; that’s what state certifications are. Objections to Biden’s electoral votes in the House will be shot down.

  3. Roger Rabbit #
    3

    Just in: Case dismissed.