Sen. Cruz puts his full weight behind Trump PA case going to SCOTUS


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had argued before the Supreme Court in the past and was involved in the Bush vs. Gore case. He threw his full support behind an effort to get the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a ruling dismissing a GOP-led challenge of Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting system. The change in the law, while passed by the General Assembly, violated their state constitution. They needed a constitutional amendment.

Cruz is the first senator to voice support for the appeal publicly. He is the first senator that has the courage, it seems.

“This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis,” Cruz said in a statement.

Cruz’s full statement, posted as a press release on his website, reads as follows:

“Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.

“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.

“The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’

Cruz also noted the issue with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the suit on a technicality — “laches.” That means that the plaintiff waited too long to file their complaint. Cruz says that Trump’s campaign has convincingly argued that the standard hasn’t been evenly applied. Therefore, the case should have moved forward.

“In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called ‘laches,’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently, and so they cannot selectively enforce it now.

It was a crazy Catch 22.

“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.

“Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.

Many Americans believe the election is rigged.

“As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”

It seems like a long shot, but it would be best if the Court looks at it. Pennsylvania did violate their own constitution. The law is the law. Mail-in balloting is a corrupt joke. That doesn’t mean there is a legal case here. Chief Justice Roberts is now a liberal/leftist and would not support this case, but he doesn’t decide. The remaining conservatives will, but it’s not clear they would support the case since it is up to the states to decide their own elections.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments