Texas responds to the four states they are suing with a smackdown


Texas has replied to the four states they are suing in their Supreme Court case. In one paragraph, they state their case. If the election was illegal in the four states being sued — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — it does affect every state in the union. It disenfranchises other voters.

This is the key paragraph of many pertinent paragraphs:

“Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters. To both points, Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes.”

Additionally, they wrote:

Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence.

Advantage to those who, for whatever reason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President.

On top of these threshold issues, Defendant States do precious little to defend the merits of their actions. This Court should issue the requested injunction.

They addressed other issues brought up by the defendants on this link.

In the conclusion, they wrote: The motion for interim relief enjoining Defendant States from certifying Presidential Electors and from having such electors vote in the electoral college until further order of this Court should be granted. Alternatively, this Court should summarily vacate Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors and remand to Defendant States’ legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and the Electors Clause.

Texas wants to know why they should bother voting if urban areas can print votes. Good point.

Let’s get an answer and then move on.


20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11 by Maureen Dowling on Scribd

America Sues America

This is a controversial lawsuit with critics calling it a circus. One lawyer filed for “new Nevada and New California,” states which obviously don’t exist.

Part of the reason for the formation of New California State and New Nevada Sate is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsom (California) and Sisolak (Nevada).”

There appear to be twenty-one states supporting the Texas Supreme Court case. With today’s additions of Wyoming and, possibly Ohio, a total of 21 states – including Texas – are signed on or seek to be signed on to the Supreme Court lawsuit challenging the elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, National File reports.

Late last night in Idaho, the Republican Party overruled the state’s Attorney General, also a Republican, to file an amicus brief seeking to participate in the lawsuit, as Media Right News reported.

Wyoming announced its likely participation in the lawsuit this morning, with the state’s lawmakers sending a letter to the governor that requests the state’s Attorney General to participate in the lawsuit.

Reports indicate that at least one elected official in Georgia is seeking to participate in the lawsuit, despite the state being named in the suit itself.

The other states, which have earlier backed Texas include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments