What’s next? Battle continues after Supreme Court ‘dodges’ Trump-backed Texas case

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE


CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store for best SWAG!

The Supreme Court has declined to hear Texas’s lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, rendering a stinging defeat for not only the Lone Star State but also President Donald Trump and the large number parties, from 106 House Republicans to several state legislatures, who’d backed the effort.

However, the high court’s rejection doesn’t prevent Texas from appealing the decision. Nor does it impede the president from continuing his battle via other means.

According to Fox News’ Charles Hurt, the political battle is indeed still alive and well.

Certainly, this case was the best, biggest case that the president was holding out hope for. And, you know, it ends this legal wrangling of this case. But, it doesn’t end the political wrangling of this case,” he noted Friday on Fox News’ “Special Report.”

And the president still has a lot of political room, and he will continue to make the argument that there were real problems with this election.”

Hurt explained that even with the court rulings against him, the president’s points about the potential for fraud and impropriety in the election remain valid.

As an example, he pointed to Democrats “exploiting the pandemic to start this mass mail-in voting drive, which raises lots of concerns, and I think probably caused a lot more opportunities for fraud in the election than in a regular election.”

Indeed.

Listen:

The high court’s decision also doesn’t negate the additional election-related lawsuits that remain pending in Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona, according to Fox News’ Shannon Bream.

There are still live controversies there, cases that are proceeding, including the fact that they’re going to skip a step in Wisconsin,” she revealed later Friday evening on Fox News’ “The Story.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge there at noon tomorrow, local time, on a Saturday. So it is moving expeditiously in these states. They know the clock is ticking.”

The clock is indeed ticking, as the Electoral College is slated to meet Monday, though Bream did note that technically the electors’ votes won’t be certified for another month.

“It’s not certified until January, actually, so the Trump team is continuing to argue we still have a little more daylight to argue these cases. We’ll see,” she said.

Listen:

Bream only referenced cases that were previously filed by the president’s 2020 campaign. But other potential cases also remain pending.

After suffering defeats in Georgia and Michigan earlier this week in her own 2020 election suits, attorney Sidney Powell vowed to take the cases to the Supreme Court.

Georgia-based attorney Lin Wood meanwhile announced Friday that one of his own 2020 election cases has been “docketed” in the Supreme Court:

There also remains a possibility that the president will appeal a rejection by the Nevada Supreme Court this week of his appeal to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.

Of course, even if any of these cases make it before the Supreme Court, there’s no guarantee the court will rule in favor of the litigants, especially considering its surprising decision to reject Texas’s lawsuit.

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot,” the ruling reads.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas added in a separate dissent of sorts that in their view the high court doesn’t “have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

However, they affirmed that even had the case been heard by the court, they wouldn’t have been inclined to grant Texas the relief it’d sought anyway.

View the ruling below:

Texas v. Pennsylvania order by Washington Free Beacon

According to legal scholar Jonathan Turley, the relief would have “effectively negate[d] the certification of millions of votes.”

Filed on Monday, Texas’s suit — which was later informally joined by 18 other states, two state legislatures and 106 House Republicans — accused Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin of having tainted their mail-in ballot counts due to unconstitutional changes they’d made to their respective election laws.

“Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted,” the suit reads.

“Whether well-intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court apparently disagreed.

Responding to the court’s ruling, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused the high court of “dodging.”

Listen:

Dodge or not, the battle ain’t over yet, as noted by Hurt and Bream.

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles