Once again, the Pravda Press, the Yahoos in particular, were in a Huff – with white side walls – that’s a boomer joke – so forget it if you less than 65 years old. The Yahoo article opens with this slanted statement: “President Donald Trump on Wednesday vowed to intervene in a long-shot lawsuit by the state of Texas filed at the U.S. Supreme Court trying to throw out the voting results in four states he lost to President-elect Joe Biden as he seeks to undo the outcome of the election.”
The law suit is actually very straight forward and even low IQ news readers and note takers in the Media Mafia should be able to see that if the SCOTUS actually interprets the Constitution as written, the law suit is anything but a “Long Shot”. Naturally, there is no mention of the details of the law suit. Why actually discuss the issue when your only job as propagandist is to say things like it’s a “long shot” and that Trump’s actions are a “threat to democracy”. Yes, you can be sure when the illiberal left propagandists accuse a conservative of something, they’re guilty of that very thing. What can be more destructive to democracy than destroying the credibility of our elections?
This case should be a slam dunk. The Constitution is very specific: Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, which state that:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.
The key words are “as the Legislature may direct”. Not a governor. Not a federal official. Not some democrat lackey. The rules are set by the State Legislature. In this Texas law suit, they say very simply that the four states in question bypassed the state legislature’s rules and set up new ones. Thus, these elections are in effect invalid. If that is how the SCOTUS reads Article 2, Sec 1 – then the only remedy would appear to be a redo in these 4 states and with measures to ensure that they abide by the rules of their State legislatures.
And there’s more. There is real precedent for this. From the Constitution.org – we have the following statement:
All of these variations are allowable under the constitutional design. As the Supreme Court wrote in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), which rejected a constitutional challenge to a Michigan law providing for selection of Electors by a district system, “the appointment and mode of appointment of Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.” We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States. . .” When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.
Let that last line sink in. When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures. That’s clear in 2 precedents. Any 3rd rate law student can see that, but will our esteemed SCOTUS? I suspect that for political reasons the SCOTUS will want to avoid this one, but I do not think they have a choice. It is too easy to spot. If they chicken out and let this bogus election stand, we will not only have a totally corrupted election system, but a Constitution that has been eviscerated by cowardice.