2/ I had previous analyzed the PA constitutional problems in depth and this analysis translates perfectly (albeit without the standing and remedy issue addressed). Also, if you haven't read, thefederalist.com/2020/11/12/pen…
3/ that piece, it was an exclusive with long-term PA election chair and it adds substantially to the texture of the PA violation alleged in Texas case.
4/ And here's the solution Texas wants the S.Ct. to mandate...something the state legislators could do on their own if they weren't a bunch of pantywaists. thefederalist.com/2020/11/19/sta…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ohio filed a motion for leave to file amicus taking issue with remedy Texas proposes, asserting jurisdiction is mandatory, and requesting S.Ct. address issue Texas raises re electors' clause. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…
Lawsplained: Ohio filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to let it file a brief as a "friend of the court," and said it's position argued would be: that the REMEDY Texas wants is not called for but that the S.Ct. needs to answer the question of what the Electors Clause 1/
2/ of the constitution means in the case of state bureaucrats or courts modifying rules set by the state legislature. Ohio also argues the Supreme Court MUST hear a case between two different states (mandatory jurisdiction), while current S.Ct. precedent is it is discretionary
If you want to form your own opinion on the merits of Texas' case, here's what I recommend you do: 1) Read this: thefederalist.com/2020/11/12/pen… 2) Then read Bush v. Gore (including Rehnquist concurrence) and McPherson v. Blacker.
3) then read thefederalist.com/2020/12/09/6-t… to get the basics. 4) And finally read actual filings by Texas.
An intelligent, logical non-lawyer can follow it all (with the lawsplaining in the articles) and form own opinion.
But the law is one thing and the prudential judgments of the justices another, so here's my prediction:
DH & I are drooling over our dream house, Georgian Colonial and are imaging our personal touches to make it "perfect." Our styles are 90% same and while we both love dormers, he insists dormers won't look right because a hip roof...so I keep sending pictures to prove my point.1/
2/ So today's Mom/DS movie tradition of watching Home Alone offered quite the plus!
3/ ...which explains why DH sent me this picture and comment:
So, I finished Texas' briefing and don't let anyone tell you this is a coup attempt or attempt to overturn election. It's not. There are serious constitutional issues. But, I doubt 5 justices will want to get involved and my gut prediction is that a majority of the court will 1/
2/deny Texas' request for relief, basically reasoning that the state legislatures could name the electors if they wanted to and by not doing so they are ratifying the results. In other words, Texas can't force MI, WI, PA, and GA state legislatures to remember we're a Republic.
3/ And frankly, our beef shouldn't be with the Supreme Court if it refuses to order the state legislatures to name the electors, it should be with the pantywaist chicken 💩 state legislators who refuse to do so now. thefederalist.com/2020/11/19/sta…
THREADETTE: I'm swamped working on my opus of the guilty behind the targeting of @GenFlynn, while waiting for a response brief to come in so I can pounce with my reply. So I'm tossing this out on Twitter w/ more refined points later. 1/
2/ Republicans can do 2 things at same time, even if different ones want to focus on only one aspect: (1) expose voter fraud & violations of election code & challenge results; and (2) ensure Rs control Senate by supporting GA and if GA resident voting AND preventing fraud.
3/ B/w now and run-off election instead of tossing in hat & saying doesn't matter, do something: grassroots to monitor election facilities; volunteer to do an undercover @Project_Veritas sting to root out fraud; volunteer to be poll watcher.
I have a theory on the "perjury" trap sprung on @GenFlynn, which would be very difficult to prove but evidence supports. Because there was no recording of questioning of Flynn, we only have what Flynn recalls saying & what agents said they asked/he said. 1/
2/ Even with perfect recall, if agents asked Flynn whether he discussed sanctions w/ Kislyak, answer is no. But if discussed expulsions, answer is yes. 302 indicates Flynn did mention expulsions in answer by say "but not 30". But somewhere, Deep State line became Flynn lied
3/ about not discussing SANCTIONS. Yates thought that and said that to White House. And Special Counsel's office charged Flynn with lying about sanctions, when transcript shows he didn't discuss sanctions w/ Kislyak. I'd wager in prepping questions agents intentionally