The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh-hour challenge to elect Joe Biden President.
The court's action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was dismissed "for lack of standing."
Texas, with the support of President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, alleging fraud, without evidence. But in order for the state to sue in court, especially the Supreme Court, the state must prove that it was injured. In essence, the court said that Texas cannot show that it was hurt the way other states conducted their elections.
"Texas has not demonstrated judicial interest in the way another state conducts its elections,"the court wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that in their opinion " the court has no discretion to refuse to file a complaint invoice in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
But Monday they said that although they will submit the complaint, but they didn't stop Trump or Texas, any of the relief they requested.
Kevin McCarthy, the highest-ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, had earlier in the day linked his name to his 125 House Republican colleagues who supported Trump's long-running bid. Was McCarthy the most prominent member of Congress to support the lawsuit.
On Tuesday, a lawsuit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton four states where Biden has been certified to the winner: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The lawsuit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, was described as an "original" case, pitting one state against another.
Paxton claimed that target states made changes to election procedures because of the epidemic that violated federal law. The changes allegedly enabled voter fraud. The Supreme Court was asked to extend Dec. 14 deadline for electoral college voters to cast ballots in those four states, disputed more time was needed to allow the election results to be investigated.
Paxton's lawsuit came in the face of repeated findings by state officials, including Republican state deputies, who testify to the results, as well as statements by U.S. Attorney William Barr that the Justice Department did not find evidence of widespread fraud in this year's election.
The Texas lawsuit began a series of legal petitions in the Supreme Court. President Trump sought to join not only Texas ' lawsuit, but also 17 other states-all of which were overwhelmingly won by Trump. More support will follow, including the brief from the majority of Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Late on Thursday, the four targeted States returned in briefs filed in the Supreme Court.
"Texas calls on 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, president of the Association of Republican Attorneys General. "This call must be firmly rejected by Faustian,"he said.
"Georgia has done what the Constitution enabled it to do,"the state brief said. "She carried out election operations, managed elections in the face of logistical challenges caused by Covid-19, and confirmed and validated the election results-again and again and again. After Texas sued Georgia anyway."
Pennsylvania pot stinging. "The court must not commit to this seditious assault on judicial proceedings, and it must send a clear and unambiguous signal that this assault must never be repeated,"she said in her summary. Wisconsin said that Texas 'attempt to" nullify [Wisconsin's] choice of [President] lacks a legal basis or a factual basis."
It was not clear 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 so far, both state and federal courts at lower levels, including Trump-appointed judges, have found the fraud allegations unfounded.
The unprecedented nature of Paxton's lawsuit, plus the fact that the state's chief appellate attorney, Kyle Hawkins, did not sign the Texas brief as he usually does, has sparked speculation that Paxton is seeking a pardon. He is currently under indictment for securities fraud, and is being investigated by the FBI over bribery and abuse of power allegations.
Although the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between states, but such cases are rare, and confined almost exclusively to disputes that could not be addressed by other courts, such as those relating to boundaries or water rights.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Biden. Trump distanced himself from the legal strike and instead tied his bandwagon to the Texas lawsuit, describing it as "the case everyone has been waiting for."
Trump reportedly held talks with some Republican prosecutors who were meeting this week in Washington, urging them to support the Texas lawsuit. Several news organizations reported that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, agreed to represent Trump if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.
The initial reaction to the invitation of Texas, however, was dismissive at best. Senator John Cornyn, R - Texas, told CNN that he is "frankly struggling to understand the legal theory" of the lawsuit, noting that electoral disputes in our system "are determined at the state and local level and not at the national level."
The Texas lawsuit had other problems. First it was a question of legal status. Basically, how does Texas, or the states that join it, have the legal standing to complain about voting and counting procedures in other states?
Next, the Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to delay voting in four target states, but as Professor Edward Foley of Moritz School of Law noted, the date for voters to cast ballots is set by federal law under the Constitution, which requires the day to be "the same throughout the United States."
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 is too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the allegations are worthy (they are not),"he wrote.
Friday evening after the decision, Hasen wrote that the fact that" courts across the country, with both Democratic and Republican judges, held the rule of Law line " is " really something to celebrate."
Benjamin Ginsburg, a longtime election law expert for the Republican Party, told CNN on Wednesday that he did not believe "for a moment" that the Supreme Court would consider taking up the case.
However, with three Trump appointees on the court, and a newly strengthened 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed conservative justices, the president apparently believes the Supreme Court will look at the case differently from "election experts.""He was wrong.
Except for unforeseen events, the result of the court's work is that on Monday, the Electoral College delegates in each state will cast their votes, and Joe Biden will officially become president-elect, with just one more step, in the House of Representatives where Electoral College votes are adopted, before he is sworn in on January 20.
Post a Comment