Hans A. von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation is no slouch. He co-authored “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.” He was a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission from 2006 to 2007 and is also a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Justice Department. Thus, no social media emotion driven nitwit is he. And he says the fat lady hasn’t quite sung on this election yet. But her mouth is open.
Spakovsky: “The U.S. Supreme Court rejection Friday night of the legal Hail Mary pass Texas threw contesting the November presidential election probably ends the last realistic chance President Trump had to block an election victory by former Vice President Joe Biden. Texas filed a motion Monday asking the Supreme Court for permission to file a lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over changes the four states made in their election rules. All four of those states were carried by Biden in the election, but the Trump campaign sought to invalidate those results as improper. Under procedural rules, a state cannot sue another state directly without first getting the approval of the Supreme Court. That approval was denied by the high court Friday night.”
The historical order from #SCOTUS on #TexasLawSuit pic.twitter.com/fwebpPO0YW
— Mahtab R. (@MahtabRD) December 12, 2020
Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
MORE NEWS: The Latest on the Show
Capice? There are other more pressing fights, like Georgia, to focus on. Get a grip. The enemy is in Paris and some still want to fight him at Sedan.
“Texas had argued that because the election of a president is ‘the shared enterprise of the entire nation,’ the violations of the Constitution by the actions of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin adversely affected the voters of Texas by diminishing the value of their votes. But the Supreme Court obviously did not buy that argument. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, appended a statement that would not change the ultimate outcome of denying relief to Texas. Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution says that the Supreme Court has ‘original jurisdiction’ over all ‘Controversies between two or more states.’
Go Ad-Free, Get Exclusive Shows and Content, Go Premium Today - $1 Trial
“But as noted, the Supreme Court has a rule in which it requires a state to first get permission from the court before one state can sue another state. Alito clearly believes that rule is inconsistent with the Constitution and stated that, in his view, that the Supreme Court does ‘not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.’
“Most importantly, Alito went on to say that while he would ‘grant the motion’ and allow Texas to file its complaint, he ‘would not grant other relief.’ So Texas would still not get what it wanted even if the lawsuit went ahead. In essence, this basically clears the way for the meeting of the Electoral College on Monday.” This is a from a conservative lawyer who has served two Republican presidents. You do the math on Monday and figure out who’ll be inaugurated, sadly, in January.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
I can only imagine the kind of threats that it took to cause the new justices on the Supreme Court {former defenders of the Constitution} to spit in the faces of soon to be 2nd class citizens,you know,the ones that ACTUALLY believe in the Constitution as it was written. We appear to be down to 2 choices,submit to leftist/communist tyranny,or face what comes next,as our forefathers had to recognize,and face in 1776. It is easy to shout "MOLON LABE",but very difficult to be willing to bleed for that precious Constitution of ours.Are you ready?