UPDATE: SCOTUS merely denied injunction. PA. case STILL ACTIVE.
How the local Pravda lies with its headline on the case:
"Supreme Court Denies Trump Allies' Pennsylvania Election Challenge"
The USAToday reporter actually got it right in the story. Headline SHOULD have read "Supreme Court Refuses to Enjoin PA Certification"
But 'What Is Truth'? to this bunch.......?
SCOTUS stiff-armed the Pennsylvania suit today.
Rumor has it that since the Texas filing encompasses ALL the election-fraud States (MI. PA, WI, and GA), SCOTUS would rather deal with the Texas filing.
LA joined TX earlier today, rumors are that a total of 7 States will be on the plaintiff's side soon.
Hinderaker doesn't like a good result:
...Texas’s lawsuit strikes me as plausible from a legal standpoint. It avoids the morass of fact-finding on numerous claims of fraud and irregularity (although there are considerable allegations along these lines in the pleadings) that cannot possibly be carried out by any court, let alone an appellate court, in a workable time frame. Does that mean the case will succeed? No. It may very well be subject to legal infirmities that the defendant states will soon point out. And the likelihood that the Supreme Court will seriously entertain the idea of overturning the apparent result of the election is far-fetched....
About 85% of Republican voters and 30% of Democrat voters think this election was fixed. SCOTUS had best think VERY hard about installing Biden Harris.
2 comments:
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119395
“Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it’s too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).”
Gee. Karpetbagger Kaul shows up to wail and whine in my combox!
An understanding of the Constitution--as written--shows you are a feckless little twit-liar. Maybe you're really a Wigderson?
Post a Comment