We are getting closer to a decision from the Supreme Court on the pending original jurisdiction matter of the State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. The first important hurdle that must be crossed is whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case under the authority of Original Jurisdiction.
From the article linked above:
The next several days might prove to be highly revealing, following today December 8th. Examine some steps in sequence, which reveal the concept of Original Jurisdiction. Within the concept, the Supreme Court could likely preside over the election results, or guide its final determination.
[…] Next comes the ingenious part, calling into usage the principle of Original Jurisdiction. It kicks into gear when two or more states are locked in a dispute, whereby the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to gather and hear evidence much like a trial court.
If that threshold is met, the Supreme Court will hear the case and rule on it.
Our President has moved to Intervene in the Texas Supreme Court Case.
At this point in time, 18 states have joined the Texas lawsuit.
From the article linked above:
After a year that saw the nation racked by COVID-19, it just may be 19 red states that help redeem it.
Texas was joined in its lawsuit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia by more than one-third of America’s states that seek justice.
Then Arizona’s AG issued a controversial statement, along with its announcement that it would likely file an amicus brief if SCOTUS took up Texas’s case.
Let’s take a look at the justices that will determine the fate of our country and our President. I am REALLY excited by the fact that 3 of them worked to support GWB when his case went before the Supreme Court in 2000.
From the article linked above:
Three who assisted Bush
Chief Justice John Roberts
[…] Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bush’s legal team. He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bush’s case to the Florida state Supreme Court and offered advice throughout.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh
He was also in private practice in 2000 and helped the Bush legal team. He wrote on a 2018 Senate questionnaire that his work related to recounts in Volusia County, Florida.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett
Barrett wrote on the questionnaire she submitted to the Senate for her Supreme Court confirmation review, “One significant case on which I provided research and briefing assistance was Bush v. Gore.” She said the law firm where she was working at the time represented Bush and that she had gone down to Florida “for about a week at the outset of the litigation” when the dispute was in the Florida courts.
On the bench
Justice Clarence Thomas
He is the only remaining member of the five-justice majority that resolved Bush v. Gore. Thomas joined the unsigned opinion that said Florida had run out of time to recount disputed ballots without violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Other conservative justices
Justice Samuel Alito
[…] Pressed on what he thought of the outcome, Alito begged off, saying, “I have not studied it in the way I would study the issue if it were to come before me as a judge and that would require putting out of my mind any personal thoughts that I had on the matter.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch
Like Kavanaugh, he worked in the George W. Bush administration and was appointed by Bush to a federal appeals court.
When then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Gorsuch about Bush v. Gore, he responded, “I know some people in this room have some opinions on that, I am sure, Senator. But as a judge, it is precedent of the US Supreme Court, and it deserves the same respect as other precedents of the US Supreme Court when you are coming to it as a judge.”
Our President is absolutely right!
Chief Justice Roberts’ cannot be counted on! We have seen to many instances where he was the swing vote against our President.
Justice Alito and Thomas are no brainers in my opinion. I LOVE the fact that Justice Kavanaugh and Barrett worked as part of GWB’s legal team in 2000.
The wildcard for me is Justice Gorsuch. I believe in my heart that he wouldn’t screw over our President and our country. He was the first justice appointed by our President.
Over the next week or so, we will know the final outcome.
John Eastman is part of our President’s legal team.
I can think of 4 more conservative states who should be in this – Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Kentucky. And where is North Carolina?
NC’s AG is an elected position and currently held by a Democrat so no, he won’t be joining conservative states. They have a Dem gov as well.
KY’s AG is an elected position held by Cameron who is extremely busy with a large number of hot button issues … and yet I am still surprised he did not join. He seems to be the real deal and a rising GOP future leader.
https://ag.ky.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Wyoming’s AG is appointed by the gov who is GOP … but same state who congresswoman was not supporting President Trump in his demand for election integrity through the courts so WY swampish or just slow to act on this one? IDK …
Alaska’s AG is also appionted by the gov who is GOP so IDK. time will tell. Alaska has been known to be swamp, eg 2010 Senatorial race (one of my early wake up calls)
Idaho’s AG is GOP… ???
Thx Maga Mom — this explains a lot!
Our NC AG is probably hiding under his mask up our governors rear end, unfortunately.
Pass the mind bleach, please.
More states have joined. State legislatures are feeling their oats and growing backbones.
Love PA GOP legislators are filing on behalf of Texas against their own state’s governor and his actions.
http://www.pahousegop.com/News/18713/Latest-News/PA-House-Republicans-File-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Election-Lawsuit-Filed-by-State-of-Texas
and other states filing to voice their concerns about the election “irregularities”
https://pdfhost.io/v/5w6rB6uwP_FINAL_TO_FILE_SCOTUS_SIGNED_20201210pdf.pdf
from the latter link:
“Movants, who are elected and sitting Senators and Representatives of the
State of Alaska, State of Arizona, and State of Idaho, and the sitting Lieutenant
Governor of the State of Idaho, and who share a commitment to preserving (1)
the constitutional promise of a republican form of government and (2)
honest elections, respectfully request leave of the Court (1)
to file the attached A mici Curiae brief in support of Plaintiff State of Texas…”
I don’t even pretend to understand the legalese but I do know that I love seeing GOP elected politicians stand up and take action even if their AGs &/or governors are not.
People, espeically Idahoians are ticked. Appears that Idaho is staying out.
Linda!! I am Hammering our Ag!! Damnit!! Our President put him on the Supreme Court short list!! He’s lookin like a loser right now!!
I’m not clear when this scenario could happen..after a ruling by SCOTUS ?
https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1336793125117976579
Brian Kennedy is wrong.
The House chooses from the top three votegetters and there’s no constraint on who a state casts its vote for beyond that it must be one of those three.
More towards your question, this could happen if enough states either don’t appoint electors, or have their electors disqualified in Congress, that Biden doesn’t have 270, and neither does Trump. In the event no one gets 270 or more, the House has to decide the election.
What defines a Republican or a Democratic state? Is it according to the governor’s political affiliation? the majority in the statehouse? This has never been clear to me.
The number of Republicans versus Democrat Congressional seats.
Republicans have a majority in 26 states while Democrats have it in 21 states. 3 states are tied so they wouldn’t be eligible to cast a vote.
So although there are more Dems in the House, there are more states that have more Repub Representatives than Dem Representatives? Is that it?
What do you mean “not eligible”?
If they can poll themselves and determine that they want to vote for a candidate they can. They don’t become ineligible because of party affiliation.
The constitution doesn’t even contain the concept of parties.
I’m always a sucker for the thug life sunglasses (easily amused, lol)
https://twitter.com/cjtruth/status/1336714438372716545
As usual, the President gets to the heart of things. The fate of our country depends on the COURAGE of five justices.
The legal question can be decided validly any way they want. Because this case is factually unprecedented, any way they go they will be making up new law on the Constitutional issue of fundamental fairness.
The important question is the moral one. Will they let evil win? When they know evil can and will make their lives miserable?
Equal Protection is NOT “unprecedented” (Bush v. Gore)
Gorsuch:
it is precedent of the US Supreme Court, and it deserves the same respect as other precedents of the US Supreme Court when you are coming to it as a judge.”
I was not referring to equal protection in any respect. I was suggesting an entirely new Constitutional analysis, new in the sense of its applicability to elections. The analysis otherwise has been applied in different legal circumstances. But it is no less valid in the context we are now facing.
Another legal issue coming to light – foreign and domestic ELECTION INTERFERENCE campaign waged by MSM and social media to WITHHOLD incriminating information and SILENCE conservative voices!!!
(!) NOTICE! – Twitter’s denial of election fraud is partisan political activism. (!)
I don’t know, Flep. After 3+ years of reading Q drops, it seems like SCOTUS doing the right thing would be too easy.
I have to agree with you. I don’t trust five out of the nine on the SC.
I don’t trust nine out of the nine! 😂 🤣 😂
thanks for your insights Flep!! always appreciated!!
I really hope the Court takes the lead here and takes the case. It’s too important to allow lesser judges (who have already shown their biases) to muck up our Constitution.
Courage and conviction…our Court must have it!
Thanks Flep. The attached article was also worth reading.
Umm…I hate to disagree, but I think this one is a no brainer.
Yeah, I think that’s a NO.
Felice, I’m a little late, but I saw you were getting somewhat discouraged a week or two ago, and I just wanted to thank you and encourage you and to tell you to keep your spiritis up. It’s all in the hands of the Lord, whatever happens, and I amoptimistic still.
Zoe!!!!! You Make us…Stronger!!!
GUESS IT ALL DEPENDS on whether Chynah has made influence inroads via bribe/blackmail into our highest court.
OR WHETHER – President Trump has been able to command the AG, heads of CIA, FBI, DoD Spec Ops to testify to foreign influence/sedition/treason – to the SCOTUS secretly – as a matter of National Security State of Emergency as some have conjectured.
ELECTION FRAUD, especially at the behest of a foreign power or powers (Chyneeze, Iranians) is horrific sedition/treason!
106 HOUSE REPUBLICANS BACK TEXAS SCOTUS CASE!!!!!
https://twitter.com/thebias_news/status/1337145372502704128
That is really good. How many House Republicans are there?
21 STATES have joined the Texas case – OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, IN, MO, AK, LA, MS, TN, AL, OH, WV, FL.
There may be others soon.
https://nationalfile.com/update-21-states-now-support-texas-scotus-lawsuit-42-of-america-to-sue-8-of-america/
There’s those states I was wondering about – ID, AK, and WY. But still no KY. And I don’t care how busy he is, this case is paramount to whether we are still a constitutional republic or a Chinazi colony.
Oh goody, I get to be a fox now! 😁
😀 👍
Your husband would probably maintain you’ve been a fox for a very long time.
Ha ha ha! That’s very sweet, Steve, but I’m single at the moment. 😃
Do you mind if I maintain that you are a fox then?
At my age, I’ll take all the compliments I can get!
Well, you know simply being Deplorable (with or without the basket) is worth two full points on the Bo Derek 1-10 scale. (Or 2/3rds the distance to 10, whichever is less, otherwise Melania would score 11.9997 out of 10.)
Asking my self the same question Linda,
I recall a similar question was raised during WWII at Leyte Gulf.
Where is task force 34?
Where is Halsey?
The World wonders.
One can only assume their silence means corruption.
“The Supreme Court will deliver justice in this case or it will cease to be about Justice.”
___________
In that case, prepare for it to cease to be about justice!
Counting on the SC is like counting on Lucy not to move the football this time.
I don’t know how anyone can do it, how anyone can believe it or give the SC the benefit of the doubt. It didn’t even occur to me that the SC might rule in Trump’s favor, and it won’t make any difference if they don’t, because there is no way Trump was counting on the SC (or the House) to save the Republic in the first place.
You simply cannot put the fate of the Republic in the hands of government bodies which have proven themselves corrupt time and time (and time) again.
So when you put together a plan to save the Republic, counting on corrupt branches of government cannot be part of that plan — because if they are, then you don’t have a plan at all.
Cabal has all the money in the world, and they only need to flip one (more) justice.
And I still don’t believe DJT would put himself or the fate of the Republic in the hands of either corrupt branch (judicial or congressional). He earned a landslide victory and ALL of the political capital that goes with it. WHY would he give that up, and limp across the finish line with a life-preserver from the House or the SC, who have earned historic levels of distrust by the American People?
If that’s Trump’s plan, then he didn’t have a plan.
And Trump definitely had a plan.
If the SC rules Trump’s way, that’s fine, the exposition of fraud continues.
If the SC rules against Trump, that has to have been anticipated, in which case the benefit is that another mole is exposed on the SC, and “plan A” is still proceeding as expected.
You make some great points, Scott. And there is something else that should tell us that POTUS wasn’t counting on the Supreme Court – the fact that Ginsberg only died in the middle of September – a scant month and a half before the election. He had to have had a plan BEFORE that event. He couldn’t have counted on getting another conservative justice at that point.
Excellent point 👍😁
You are 100% Right Scott!!!
I Sleep like a baby.. Knowing.. God Wins! Trump Wins!!!
Here is what I don’t understand about the TX case against the cheating swing states:
TX did the exact same thing as they are charging the other states of doing.
If TX wins in SCOTUS will that throw out TX’s own election resutls? TX gov made changes v. going through the legislature too.
Will this invalidate all state’s election results whose governors/judges changed election laws?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-republican-gov-abbott-sued-by-gop-over-early-voting-decision
As long as Joe is tossed below 270 it goes to the House to be settled. Assuming the Robert’s court can handle this. The man is a coward.
Roberts is now outnumbered. And as an aside, isn’t it about time we find out who the “John Roberts” on the Epstein flight logs is?
He is still the chief and has a big say in what the court does or does not do.
Do not agree.. Justice Thomas kicks Roberts Butt…Fuck Da chief!
Ron.. CodeMonkeyZ is calling out Andy Beshear!!! Praise God!!! Hiya Flep!!
Just wanted to toss in,
𝕎𝔼𝕃ℂ𝕆𝕄𝔼 𝔹𝔸ℂ𝕂!
I read all your articles I just don’t always comment. You cover the topic thoroughly so no need. 😋
If posted prior sorry can’t find it, if I have it all wrong point me in the right direction pleaseDamn — Get ready
Supreme Court Rejects Texas Bid to Overturn Election ResultsBy
Greg Stohr
December 11, 2020, 6:36 PM EST Updated on December 11, 2020, 7:24 PM EST
Supreme Court Rejects Texas Bid to Overturn Election Results https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-overturn-election-results