.
In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.
As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."
On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”
Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:
"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "
In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.
The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."
Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:
"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."
It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.
So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
.
JWK
.
“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel
In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020.
As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."
On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”
Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:
"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "
In response to the claims made in the Texas lawsuit, and the evidence presented, our Supreme Court refused to hear the case, listen to sworn witnesses, and examine the evidence which establishes our federal election process in the Defendant States has been corrupted to such a degree that the election outcome cannot justly be accepted as being legitimate.
The question here is, what is the rational and legal reasoning of our Supreme Court to assert Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
Keep in mind what our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, "convey the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."
Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:
"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."
It seems more that apparent that the Roberts' Court failed in its duty to hear a case, so critical in nature, that its refusal to adjudicate the case gives legitimacy to Trump's claims, and perhaps seventy-three million voters, that illegal voter activities in the Defendant States leaves a dark and threatening cloud over the legitimacy of Biden's election.
So, the unanswered question is, what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
.
JWK
.
“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel
