Texas v. PA, WI, MI, GA is the most important Supreme Court Case that America has seen in our nation’s recent history. On the surface, the high court will be deciding whether the four defendant states violated the Constitution by changing their election laws without even consulting their state legislatures. Beneath the surface, this case will decide whether America can even continue as a country for a few more years, or if we will instead descend into a violent civil war and/or ultimate secession and Soviet-style breakup of the 50 states. Upon reading the defendant states’ response to the Texas suit, my first thought was: “Did… you guys write this in crayon?”
The defendant states’ briefs are that terrible. Which is good news for Texas and good news for President Trump’s chances of prevailing in the 2020 election. If you’re going to argue an important case before the Supreme Court, you need to send your A-Team. To paraphrase a great man, the Democrats are not sending their best… they’re sending people with a lot of problems!
I’ll share some samples from Pennsylvania’s response, followed by explanations of why I believe the Democrat Party has long-since devolved into a party of emotionally distraught children:
PA: “What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts.”
Um, no. The one case that the Supreme Court rejected would have involved fact-finding, which is not what the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court’s duty is to interpret matters of law based on the Constitution. Do you have a legal argument you’d like to bring to the table, Pennsylvania?
PA: “Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous.”
The outcome of the presidential election obviously affects Texas, so it does have standing. So do the additional 18 states that have filed amicus briefs in support of Texas. 106 Republican Members of Congress – representing untold millions of Americans – have likewise filed briefs in support of Texas’ case, along with the President of the United States.
And it’s somehow “dangerous” for Texas to file a case in court? Dangerous to whom? If the Democrats think it’s dangerous for Texas to file a legal case, I’d suggest that maybe they should pause for a few moments and ponder what Texas might consider Plan B in a situation where the nation is on the brink of civil war.
PA: “Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections.”
This is flailing and hand-waving. The PA Attorney General is just stringing words together at this point – I love carpet! I love lamp! Texas isn’t trying to dictate anything to Pennsylvania. It’s asking the court to determine whether Pennsylvania broke the law, by arbitrarily altering the way that it conducts elections.
As for the “history” of the Constitution, that’s exactly what the Supreme Court is for – sorting out issues that we’ve never encountered before! Did a CHILD write this brief for you, Pennsylvania?!
PA: “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.”
Texas isn’t asking the court to pick the next President. Texas is asking the court to rule on a clear point of constitutional law, which would then require Congress to enact backup measures that were written into the Constitution for just such an event as the nation is going through right now. And… it’s seditious for Texas to go to court? What?!
Going to court is like the literal opposite of sedition. As legal scholar Jonathan Turley noted, to say that going to court is proof of sedition is like arguing that going to church is proof of atheism. Since sputtering projection is a core tenet of liberalism, at least we now know exactly what you guys are doing. Remember: If a Democrat accuses you of sedition… it means they are in the act of committing sedition.
And “The court should not abide… send a clear and unmistakable signal…”
Oh, no, you didn’t! Wow, Pennsylvania!
We know that the Pennsylvania Attorney General isn’t going to be reading this, so let me just offer you a little piece of sort-of legal advice. (As I’ve mentioned a few times in the past, I’m not an attorney but I keep one around the house to help with the laundry.)
If you ever have to argue a case before any court – but especially the United States Supreme Court – there is one thing you should avoid doing above all others:
DO NOT TELL THE COURT HOW TO DO ITS JOB!
The defendant states’ briefs never make an actual legal argument as to why the court should rule in their favor. But at the end of their rambling, incoherent, name-calling “brief,” they tell the court how it should rule. Oh, you dear, sweet, short-bus buffoons. You didn’t go to any of the good law schools, did you?
Telling a court how to do its job is the legal equivalent of running with scissors while blindfolded. It probably won’t end well for you, if you ever try it. Bossing around the US Supreme Court is a good way to earn yourself a 9-0 butt-whooping.
I’ve never seen such a childish legal brief filed in a case of national importance like this. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s brief with the court is substantive, fact-based and makes sound legal arguments. The defendant states’ brief is proof that the Democrats didn’t think through their actions on election night. They never figured their actions would end up before the Supreme Court, and now they’ve been caught flat-footed.
I can’t predict how the Supreme Court will rule in this case, but I can tell you this: The Democrats have no legal explanation for the “irregularities” they caused in the 2020 election. And that is a bad position to be in when you have to present your case before Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Sam Alito.