Election 2020

Texas AG Files Reply Briefs in Last Ditch Effort to Upend Election Result

If you thought the briefing in Texas v. Pennsylvania could not get worse, you are in for a surprise.

|

Amicus filings of various sorts continued to pour in to the Supreme Court last night and into this morning, when Texas filed its replies, and now the briefing in Texas v. Pennsylvania is complete. For additional background, here are links to my prior posts on the initial Texas filing, the supporting filings by Donald Trump and 17 other state AGs, and some of yesterday's pleas for intervention and amicus briefs. All of the filings are available here.

Among the filings posted late yesterday were an amicus from #Kraken attorney L. Lin Wood, submitted on his own behalf, asking to submit a never-filed petition for certiorari in another case as his amicus brief, and a brief from Montana Governor Steve Bullock, pointing out that neither Texas nor Trump has sought to invalidate the selection of presidential electors in states that made equivalent changes to voting rules as the defendant states but where Trump prevailed. As Bullock's brief notes, this underscores "that this action is less about election integrity than it is about attempting to overturn the will of the electorate." [Update: Last, but perhaps not least, this afternoon the Court received a filing in support of Texas on behalf of State of New California and New Nevada State.]

This brings us the Texas AG Ken Paxton's reply–or, rather, replies, as there are multiple filings, including a motion to enlarge the word-count limit a supplemental declaration dated today from Charles Cicchetti, and a new affidavit prepared yesterday from one Lisa Gage.

The first reply brief focuses on rebutting the factual and legal claims made by the four defendant states. The brief starts with the facts, and AG Paxton's choice of emphasis here is quite interesting, as the brief leads with an extended defense of statistical stupidity contained in the initial filing and the Cicchetti declaration (hence the newly drafted supplemental declaration which is attached). Here, the Paxton brief argues "Dr. Cicchetti did take into account the possibility that votes were not randomly drawn in the later time period but, as stated in his original Declaration, he is not aware of any data that would
support such an assertion." In other words, because he does not know anything about the two sets of voters, it was okay to assume they were identical for purposes of assessing the statistical likelihood that they would vote differently. That this is the lead argument in the reply tells you most of what you need to know. (Well, perhaps not, as other parts of the factual discussion misrepresent claims made by defendant states or repeat claims that were considered and rejected in other suits over the past month.)

On the law, the Texas reply essentially argues that the handful of attorneys in the Texas AG's office who were willing to sign on to the brief know more about the election laws of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania than do the Attorneys General and Secretaries of State of those various states. It further argues that although state legislatures have "plenary" authority to set the manner in which states select electors, this somehow does not include the authority to authorize the involvement of courts and election agencies, and that the U.S. Supreme Court, not the supreme courts of the respective states, should be the final authority on the meaning of relevant state laws and constitutional provisions. (Yay federalism!)

The other Texas filing, styled as a reply in support of Texas's plea for emergency injunctive relief, is not much better. It does, however, deploy a powerful use of capitalization in the Table of Contents ("Texas IS likely to prevail"). Note that Texas does not have to worry about any of the defendant states responding in kind ("Texas IS NOT likely to prevail") because this is the last brief to be filed.

In this brief, Texas argues that it is not seeking to disenfranchise voters. Rather, Texas argues, "Defendant States' maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes." Of course, to the extent this were true, Supreme Court intervention would not be necessary. If the relevant state legislatures concluded that the results of the elections within their states were indeterminate–that the voters had failed to select electors on election day–they could act, but they have not. Here Texas repeats its arguments that federalism requires the Supreme Court ordering state legislatures to act and possibly even hold new elections because Texas does not like how other states have run their elections.

A tidbit: The Texas reply briefs include a longer list of lawyers than did the original filings, but do not include the folks one might expect to see on a state's brief to the Supreme Court. So Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins does not make an appearance, but the Attorney General's Chief of Staff Lesley French Henneke and Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy Aaron Reitz both do. (Interestingly enough, it appears from a quick Westlaw search that neither Henneke nor Reitz has submitted legal filings of any sort before, but perhaps I missed something.) It is as if Paxton is requiring all of his staff to go down with the ship.

A final note: We have seen some truly bad legal filings in various 2020 election lawsuits, but we have not–until this case–seen such bad lawyering from offices and institutions known for serious legal work. Texas v. Pennsylvania, however, has been a notable exception, and it is particularly notable to see such bad lawyering from the office of a state Attorney General. Let us hope we do not see much more of this.

[Roll credits]

Post-credits scene: The Austin-American Statesman reports:

Federal agents served at least one subpoena Wednesday on the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an ongoing investigation into allegations that Paxton abused his authority by helping a friend and campaign donor. . . .

Federal authorities are investigating claims by former top Paxton aides that he used his position to aid Austin investor Nate Paul, whose offices were raided by the FBI last year. . . .

The issuance of a federal subpoena on a state agency, and especially involving the state's top attorney, is a highly unusual move that likely would have required higher level approval from the U.S. Justice Department. . . .

The allegations about Paxton surfaced in October when the former top officials issued a letter to Paxton saying they asked federal law enforcement authorities to investigate allegations of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential crimes.

 

NEXT: Three Book Recommendations From Me (Plus Many From My Colleagues)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You’d think evil Drumpf invented the concept of pulling out all the stops to get his way in an election by how upset Adler is getting. Were you this mad when the Dems threw everything including the kitchen sink and impeachment to unseat the President way back in the olden days of 2019?

    1. There it is. That good ol’ catchy GOP refrain:

      watabout watabout watabout

      1. It’s obvious they don’t expect to win, but to set up enough doubt to turn Biden’s legitimacy into a punching bag for the next 4 years, as was done to Trump the last 4, and Hillary the 4 before that.

        You all made this bed. Enjoy!

        1. Now you’re doing it too! See, it is catchy.

          watabout watabout watabout

          1. deflec deflec deflec

        2. Spite is an easy one, Krayt. It lets you demonize the opposition, and justify being at least as bad.

          It’s also a pretty screwed up way to be, and a worse way to run the nation.
          I’d say the same thing to someone on the left saying now it was time to make the right suffer with nonsense investigations and executive orders to own the cons.

          1. What is your opinion with respect to the approaching wave of fee petitions, sanctions motions, and disciplinary complaints aimed at Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force?

            1. Stuff by the court, if it occurs, yeah, they earned that as a direct consequence of their own actions. Though I’m not betting on anything happening – that bar seems awfully high.

              As for disciplinary complaints, I don’t know enough about those to know if they’re warranted or if that would partisan nonsense like pulling Bill Clinton’s bar license.

              And, of course, individuals are free to shun and mock as they will. I just don’t want government power being used for that.

              1. It’s worth remembering, since Bill Clinton’s bar license is becoming a talking point, both that (1) Clinton lied under oath, which is a very different wrong than a lot of the stuff that these election lawyers are accused of; and (2) Clinton voluntarily gave up his bar license as part of a settlement, and it was basically a super-easy bargaining chip for him to avoid paying Paula Jones more money for his inexcusable and tortious sexual harassment of her as well as the lies that he told to thwart her attempts at obtaining justice. He wasn’t going to practice law again anyway.

                So no, bringing up Clinton’s voluntary resignation from the bar as a point of comparison here is complete BS.

        3. Uhm, you meant Obama not Hillary right?

          At least it makes the legislature predictable – vote NO on whatever the POTUS proposes. Although I don’t remember tRump proposing much.

        4. Nobody turned Trump’s legitimacy into a punching bag. Take your single quote and shove it.

          If I want to hear what Rush Limbaugh thinks about something (I don’t) I’ll listen to him.

          I don’t need you to repeat it.

          1. Jesus, bernard. It’s like you aren’t watching the same reality as everyone else. To you the riots this summer weren’t leftists. They were……well, some guys. Just people. In fact, we can’t be sure they even happened.

            And we had four years of Russia panic based on made up Democratic opposition work. Dozens of elected and prominent Democrats called Trump illigitimate. Elected Dems and former dem cabinet officers are making list of people who supported Trump and no need to be punished by the coming Truth Commission.

            Out of the hole, man.

            1. “And we had four years of Russia panic based on made up Democratic opposition work.”

              A Republican special counsel appointed and supervised by a Republican deputy attorney general working for a Republican attorney general appointed by a Republican president is what now?

              1. “Is what now?”

                I’m not sure what you think it is, but it’s not the basis for the Russia hysteria. It’s pretty much the opposite of that.

                I’m referring to the Steele dossier. Remember that? The pee tape? Clinton had her people make it up, then spent the next for years claiming it made Trump illegitimate.

                1. The Steele Dossier was part of the evidence used in the Carter Page FISA warrant. It was not the basis of the original Russia investigation: the Russia investigation was primarily launched based on reports that George Papadopoulos had bragged to foreign diplomats that the Trump campaign knew that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

                  The Steele Dossier was also not the basis for Mueller’s appointment: that was a response to the President firing James Comey after he refused a request to quash an investigation into Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

                  This has all been widely reported and covered ad infinitum. I’m genuinely not sure what the point is of pretending otherwise at this stage.

                  1. ” that was a response to the President firing James Comey”

                    Nominally. And if you don’t think that was a set up job, reflect on the fact that the guy who called for Mueller’s appointment was the guy who wrote the memo calling for Comey to be fired.

                    1. Having reflected on your tinfoil theory, I’ve decided that you’re wrong.

                      Again.

            2. To you the riots this summer weren’t leftists. They were……well, some guys. Just people. In fact, we can’t be sure they even happened.

              They may well have been leftists. But most – the vast majority – of the protestors were not rioters. So even if the thugs were leftists that doesn’t mean “the left” rioted, any more than if a bunch of Republicans robbing a bank means “the right” robbed the bank.

              And we had four years of Russia panic based on made up Democratic opposition work.

              No. The Russia business wasn’t based on “Made-up Democratic opposition work.” The Steele dossier was only a small part of the whole thing. The fact is that Trump campaign officials did meet and talk with the Russians, did indicate willingness to accept their help in the campaign, and the Russians did in fact try to help Trump. That’s been documented lots of places, including by the Senate Intelligence Committee. So don’t buy into the Limbaugh version of facts.

              Dozens of elected and prominent Democrats called Trump illigitimate.

              Cite those who refused to accept that Trump was legally elected. Tell me who went to court to try to overturn the election.

              Elected Dems and former dem cabinet officers are making list of people who supported Trump and no need to be punished by the coming Truth Commission.

              Oh really? You know this how?

              Out of the hole, man.

              You’re the one who’s in deep, bevis.

      2. De Oppresso Liber : That good ol’ catchy GOP refrain: watabout watabout watabout

        The other aspect of the Right’s watabout shtick is their tendency to cite a vulgar slap (Democrats) as the watabout for axe murder (Republican / Trump). In short, a fail even given its own terms.

        PS : Trump was impeached because he used U.S. foreign policy for his own private gain. Go ahead and watabout that. Use what really happened, not the snowflake whining run-from-the-facts version.

    2. The obvious difference is that the arguments for impeachment were serious and well supported by actual evidence, not frivolous and evidence-free like this clown car.

      BTW, I’m not interested in re-litigating the impeachment “trial” here, so your trolling will only get you this far.

      1. “arguments for impeachment were serious”

        LOL No they weren’t.

        1. But these ones appear to be.
          It is statistically impossible for Biden to have won.

          1. There is a one in one quadrillion chance that you can meaningfully support that claim.

            1. That’s being generous to Ed…..

              1. Too generous by at least a quadrillion to the fourth power.

          2. Don’t you claim to have some knowledge of statistics?

            Clearly a false claim.

          3. Ed, it isn’t statistically impossible. It freaking happened. Right in front of all of us.

            This is a garbage lawsuit from a criminal AG. I live in Texas. Paxton should be in prison.

      2. Of course you aren’t interested. The Daughters of the Confederacy had a better lost cause than the Sons and Daughters of Pelosi, or even Clem.

      3. the arguments for impeachment were serious and well supported by actual evidence

        It’s tough to fathom more torture to so many notoriously well-understood words in the English language in a single sentence.

    3. A law professor getting mad at shoddy and spurious lawyering about the structure of our electoral system?

      Well, that’s just proof they hate Trump!

      This ‘they’re all biased against Trump’ has really saved a lot of cognitive load (and actual reading of posts) by some on here.

      1. Why get mad when you think it is getting tossed immediately?

        Its like getting mad at a bad call in the 9th when your baseball team is down 28-0.

        1. Two words: collateral damage.

          This is a full frontal assault on US Democracy and will have lasting damage to the credibility of our government.

          We didn’t give the shoe bomber a pass because he failed. “Why get mad? He didn’t actually blow anything up?”

          Same logic here.

          1. Then why did Hillary get a pass for her email servers, her bribery by foreigners while Secretary of State, and her other illegal acts? Why did Holder get a pass for Fast & Furious?

            Every politician is corrupt as Hades. Your TDS shows in thinking only of Trump and expressly excusing the Democrats.

            1. The problem isn’t corruption. The problem is the argument is that the votes of millions of people are only legitimate if they are for one party.

              1. Yes, because that is statistically impossible. It’s like having 100 people with the exact same height and weight, 10,000 ballots all for just one candidate isn’t possible.

                1. It only seems statistically impossible if you’re trained to believe that the vote of Real Americans could only possibly be for Trump, the avatar of the will of the People, and not for the dementia ridden leader of the weak-willed woke radical cultural Marxist socialist left-wing liberal party that is beholden to Soros and their Big-Tech corporate masters, which controls “urban” areas using fake illegal votes to stab real Americans in the back.

                  1. 60% is a landslide, anything over 70% is suspicious.

                    1. Okay, so its cool if we give all the electoral votes in Oklahoma, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Texas among others because they had many counties vote for Trump at over 70%?

                    2. Oh lord, Ed confidently steps in it again!

                    3. Forget counties in Wyoming, the whole state went over 70% for Trump. According to Ed, it is obviously fraud. Better give Biden those electoral votes.

            2. watabout watabout watabout

              *taps foot*

              1. A sad song with such limited words.

          2. “This is a full frontal assault on US Democracy and will have lasting damage to the credibility of our government. ”

            Filing a suit is an assault? Take a deep breath

            No one will remember it a week after dismissal.

            1. It’s a symptom of a disease. Even if it won’t kill you, it’s bad news.

            2. It is an assault. High ranking officials asking the Supreme Court to violate the most basic principles of democracy and the U.S. Constitution is grotesque and anti-American. Yes, just the ask is enough. And I and many others will remember who did it, who supported it, and who remained silent.

              He’s probably a RINO now, but Sen. Ben “I found my courage and integrity again after reelection” Sasse:

              It looks like a fella begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt rather than a lawsuit.

              And Trump, Cruz, an embarrassing number of other state AGs, 100 House members, Pence’s brother, Kevin McCarthy, and Bob from Ohio support the assault on democracy to flatter Trump and elicit a pardon to cover up corruption. Throw in the really bad lawyering and stupid statistical “analysis”….is there any professional field or ethical standard they have not defaced and violated in this coming together of Trumpian anti-democracy and Paxsonian corruption?

              Authoritarians don’t necessarily win the first time. You can bet the next one who tries, whether from the right or left, will learn a great deal about how far sycophantic politicians are willing to go to further their own career. This has been educational, not in a good way.

        2. Why get mad at someone who poops on your front yard when it’s about to rain?

          People advocating this antidemocratic nonsense suck and should make you mad, even if it won’t matter.

          Plus, there’s always the small risk the Supreme Court does allow this illegitimate nonsense to occur. Sucks to be put in that position at all.

          1. This, and it makes the next attempt seem less absurd and further cements the belief of the committed 40% that “the Establishment” is against them. I mean, it can’t be complete bullshit because Cruz offered to make the argument. It must have been a good argument. But the SC wouldn’t even hear it. The Deep State obviously go to them…..that’s the spurious, necrotizing message this sends to the committed 40%.

            This is bad. If you aren’t mad, I question how much you either care or know about how democracy works and why this is such a dangerous game Trump is playing.

            1. I just moved to NoVa from DC.

              Nice place you got here.

              1. It is. I recently moved to the M of the DMV. But when Covid is over, I would happily come down and grab a beer or burger or both with you.

        3. Because if enough people believe their arguments I have to actually start seriously worrying whether our conservative party is becoming a sustainable fascist movement.

          1. “sustainable fascist movement”

            Another hysterical person.

            Well known that Mussolini and Hitler filed suits and submitted legal briefs.

            1. Yeah. There’s nothing at all fascistic about claiming a group of weak leftists in “urban areas” were stealing the election from Real Americans due to a grand conspiracy.

              1. You’re not allowed to compare them to fascists until they’ve killed 6 million people. They are only up to 300,000 so far. Sorry, those are the rules.

                1. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                2. Yeah Opresso. If we had just elected HC Covid would never have come to America.

                  Fucking idiot.

              2. We’re talking specific political “machines” which have been doing this for decades. It’s only because of Trump’s landslide that we’re noticing the fraud.

                Active duty soldiers in their 70′ & 80’s, mail in ballots from people born in the 1800s (i.e. at least 120 years old) — one in 1848…

                No, this is called stealing the election from Living Americans.

                1. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

                2. As usual, you are full of lies.

              3. “There’s nothing at all fascistic about claiming a group of weak leftists in “urban areas” were stealing the election from Real Americans due to a grand conspiracy.”

                Correct.

                “Things that are bad” or “stupid arguments” are not fascism.

                1. Plenty of people on here that talk about right-wing political violence. Plenty talk about how the franchise needs to change to keep the liberals out.
                  Plenty buy into throwing the election to Trump because of reasons.

                  Yeah, that’s one party rule by dint of violence and legal pretext. That’s fascism 101.

                2. Well, fascism is actually dependent on stupid arguments exactly like this being broadly accepted by a significant portion of the population. Combine that with:
                  –extreme nationalism,
                  –reverence for militarism,
                  –the emphasis on traditional ideas of masculinity,
                  –a belief that there should not be limits on police violence,
                  –a belief that a shady combination of both Marxists and capitalists are destroying society from within,
                  –A political slogan that emphasizes the return to a mythical past period when the Nation was truly great, etc.,

                  1. A far better definition of fascism:

                    “Everyone is the same, everyone wants to be the same.
                    Anyone who is different goes voluntarily to the madhouse.”

                    1. While Nietzsche influenced fascist thought, I wouldn’t call that a “definition” based on the historical development of the ideology.

            2. Well, I would submit that we are way beyond wanting to know what the voters want. If they didn’t dot the “I” on their signature should we really throw the vote out?
              So yes, discounting votes is on the path to fascism. Putin goes a step further and has his opponents arrested on questionable charges and tRump never tried… oh wait!

          2. The other party spent the last 6 months trying to burn the country down and you’re worried about a bunch of fascists that barely show up?

            Partisan blindness is truly debilitating.

            1. If impeachment is a Constitutional check on presidential behavior and the current Texas lawsuit is legitimate because it’s just an exercise of a Constitutional right, then how is the impeachment trial not also a legitimate exercise?

              The difference between the two is there was actual evidence in the impeachment trial and that evidence convinced members of both parties to vote for impeachment. Where is the evidence for the Texas suit?

              But somehow the impeachment is “burn[ing] the country down” and this Texas suit which tries to throw out the votes of four entire states without evidence is totally cool?

              1. Are you fucking serious? Really?

                The impeachment wasn’t burning the country down.

                Actually smashing windows and looting and setting entire city blocks on fire multiple times in multiple cities is “burning the country down”.

                1. One of the problems with this example is that these events also exposed worrying levels of praise or endorsement of police, military, and even vigilante violence on the right. Kind of important to fascist movements.

                  1. The biggest problem with this example is the people that actually set the goddam fires.

                    And people like you on the political left, along with Democratic leadership, who just can’t bring themselves to simply say “violence is wrong”.

                    So your side is committing fascist acts and all you can do is whine about fascism on the other side.

                    Partisan blindness just screws everything up.

    4. You’d think a law professor would refrain from logical fallacies:

      “On the law, the Texas reply essentially argues that the handful of attorneys in the Texas AG’s office who were willing to sign on to the brief no (sic.) more about the election laws of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania than do the Attorneys General and Secretaries of State of those various states.”

      As an aside, “everyone” involved in Maine K-12 education believed that there was a law mandating the teaching of Maine history, and had believed it for 80 years. After I couldn’t find it, and asked the state to find it for me, they admitted that there was no such law and could find no record of one ever having existed.

      1. So therefore Texas should be able to sue Maine to stop this pernicious teaching of Maine history!

      2. The practice of law does not preclude using logical fallacies. At some point, someone has to decide which of the opposing witnesses is more correct/believable. Famously, you’ll probably find that in Maine, the use of RADAR guns by the police is approved and has judicial notice in the courts. You would be hard pressed to find cases where it actually withstood scientific scrutiny.
        The original argument would be something like, RADAR saved England, therefor it works, there for its good for trivial things like measuring speed. Note: police RADAR is a pure Doppler RADAR – more or less useless to track an object like what the military typically wants/needs. But hey, its got the same name, so we are good, right?

      3. As an aside, “everyone” involved in Maine K-12 education believed that there was a law mandating the teaching of Maine history, and had believed it for 80 years. After I couldn’t find it, and asked the state to find it for me, they admitted that there was no such law and could find no record of one ever having existed.

        No, you didn’t.

    5. Were you as upset about Clinton’s impeachment as you were about Trump’s?

      1. Personally I thought Clinton should not have been deposed while in office – that’s just insane. However, I 100% believe he lied under oath and would have been deserving to be thrown out of office. Was he even sanctioned by the judge in his civil case? The Clintons are a slimy bunch (or should that be “is”?)
        As for tRump, not sure if he is slimy or stupid, or a mixture. It is 100% clear to me that he wanted to get a political rival in a Putin like fashion – there may not have been “quid pro quo” but there sure was an attempt. I also believe (without evidence, sorta like tRumps legal team – but I’m better looking) that tRump obstructed justice based on the fact that he is too stupid not to.

        1. Yes he was sanctioned. He lost his law license.

    6. Were you as mad at Clinton’s impeachment as you were at Trump’s?

    7. Lol exactly what I was thinking, AmosArch.

      Yeah, I’m sure Adler as a pure-hearted guardian of democracy was all over it when Biden, Clinton and everyone else called Trump an illegitimate President. And when they convinced 78% of Democrat voters that Russians hacked the voting machines to switch votes to Donald Trump. And election-year impeachment over nothing but covering up Trump pointing to corruption, and so on and so on.

    8. The students from the Montessori Houston tx like to play with the toys like cars and robots that entertain them while in the free time they play with it and much other stuff also there.

  2. We can now add Federalism to the list of things Republicans used to say they cared deeply about, but ignore completely when convenient.

    1. Lots of them, but nowhere near all. George SecState, Ohio’s amicus, 90 Congresspeople.

      But the momentum is not in the directions of this minority at the moment.

      1. You can add Ben Sasse and Jeb Bush to the ever-shrinking list of sane and uncowardly Republicans.

        So, yeah, not all of them. But more than enough to matter.

        1. Sane, maybe. Not aware of any conspicuous leadership from those two, let alone courage. Get back to me when Sasse crosses the aisle in the Senate.

      2. “90 Congresspeople.”

        106 I think.

    2. We can now add Federalism to the list of things Democrats now say they care deeply about, but used to ignore completely when convenient.

      1. We can now add Federalism to the list of things Democrats now say they care deeply about, but used to ignore completely when convenient

        Used to? “Muh NATIONAL MASK LAW!!!1!”

        1. What national mask law are you referring to?

          1. The one the Dems yearn for. That seemed unnecessarily coy.

            1. I yearn for many things. I’m also aware that many of those things are not possible based on our Constitution. The fact that no Democrat has introduced legislation calling for a national mask law, that Joe Biden hasn’t indicated he’ll seek one, and that nobody of any import is calling on him to do so, indicates that your mask canard is particularly canardy.

              1. I’ll play one (and only one) round of your subjective “nobody of any import” game — this took about 8 seconds to find:

                https://www.news10.com/news/ny-capitol-news/governor-cuomo-urges-president-trump-to-consider-national-mask-order-for-everyone-in-public/

                1. no Democrat has introduced legislation calling for a national mask law, that Joe Biden hasn’t indicated he’ll seek one, and that nobody of any import is calling on him to do so

                  Read the requirements, and try again.

                  1. It’s not your game, pedant — and the one round is over in any event. LOL

                    1. And just like Trump, his legal team, and the rest of his supporters:

                      You lost.

    3. What? Hypocritical politicians? Where?

  3. “On the law, the Texas reply essentially argues that the handful of attorneys in the Texas AG’s office who were willing to sign on to the brief no more about the election laws of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania than do the Attorneys General and Secretaries of State of those various states.”

    “Know”, or “care”? Are they alleging mistakes, or deliberate violations?

    1. Brett has found more bad faith!

      1. And Sarc has rediscovered cut and paste! 50 first trolls….

    2. I think we can be fairly certain that he meant “know” and whatever spellcheck or voice-to-text software he’s using is acting up.

      At least he didn’t misspell Louisiana.

  4. Chill, folks.
    This too will pass.

    1. Gallstones pass too but they can leave lasting scars.

  5. At first I thought it best for the SC to deny these without comment as to not give any credibility to them. But now this has gone too far and the SC needs to issue a 9-0 decision (without oral arguments) strongly rejecting the case and make it clear the case was utterly meritless. Anything less will threaten the foundation of the elections in this county and kill any credibility the court has.

    1. “Anything less will threaten the foundation of the elections in this county and kill any credibility the court has.”

      Another hysterical person.

      1. Tired of winning yet, Bob?

        Open wider.

    2. While I completely agree that the S.Ct. could easily slap this down with another one-liner denial, I concur that a more forceful “No, that’s now how the Constitution works” statement is in order.

      The GOP lawyering and arguments are so … authoritarian-awful that I hope they make it a 9-0 bench slap. Probably not, alas, but any justices who stay silent will have a “complicit” asterisk next to the in the history books,

    3. Instead we got a 7-2 cowardly “lack of standing” ruling.
      If one state can’t take to the Supreme Court, a suit about other states violating the Constitution, where can they?
      The SCOTUS has just rendered the Constitution null, and void.

  6. The left stuffs ballot boxes and lawyers argue no recourse, that is funny. One Christian could watch ballots come out of the xerox machine and go into the counting machine….but where does he file the complaint? The poll workers call him crazy, the supervisor of elections says the counting complied with law, the Secretary of State claims the christian is a Trump fanatic, the State Attorney General claims Russian disinformation. Then a video is produced, the State is sued by Texas resulting in Jew lawyers claiming Texas attorneys are nuts. See how the Jews control the illusion of an election?

    1. However, the left not only stuffed ballot boxes, but they did it in a completely plausable way, starting with registering poeple to vote, then mailing a request for an absentee ballot form, followed by filling out the form with the correct information like address, then intercepting the ballot when it arrived, then cleverly filling it out, sometimes not even filling out the whole ballot. Then getting it all sent back via the correct post offices etc. Pretty amazing stuff.
      Oh, and since tRump got 70million votes and “lost” the popular election by about 10million, we KNOW that the slimy Democrats must have done the above scenario at least 12-14 million times.

      The Democrats are such crafty geniuses, they deserve to win the White House..

  7. Some of the court filings I have been reading lately in a couple of the election cases resemble Volokh Conspiracy comments.

    While colleagues marvel at the stupidity, lack of self-awareness, and low literacy in this documents, I just think ‘this is how clingers think and express themselves.’

    So . . . reading the Volokh Conspiracy and its unvarnished presentation of conservative thought for years has prepared me for the level of disaffected, doomed dumbassery being exhibited by Republicans, conservatives, and their lawyers these days.

    It even has enabled me to predict a few moves by the Trump Election Elite Strike Force kraken-summoners. When others say ‘no way they would be that dumb and unprofessional,’ I am able to provide experience-based insight to the contrary (For example, I expect the Kelly-Parnell team to file another request for extraordinary consideration of the same claims that got curb-stomped, 9-0, in a few hours last week. These folks really are that heedless.)

    Thanks, guys!

    1. You can read? You clever Dick, you.

      1. I don’t expect or
        want your support or respect.
        But you will comply.

    2. Never did I imagine that being able to predict ‘what would a Paul M. Bator Award winner representing Brett Bellmore and mad_kalak do?’ could become so handy.

  8. Let’s do this here : Over at the National Review they say we owe Bill Barr an apology and I agree. My personal cartoon Barr is a whore who prostitutes himself to political power. There’s still evidence of that, but my cartoon would not have kept the Justice Department investigation of Hunter Biden secret before the election. He would have found a way to leak it, or acquiesce to others leaking.

    Compare & contrast with James Comey. He either couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with the threat of leaks before the ’16 election, and thus practically installed Trump in the Oval Office with his last minute announcement of an “investigation” of Clinton. Being Comey, he convinced himself this politically convenient action was the moral, ethical and righteous course to take. (Comey would be less a danger if his narcissism focused on looks rather than his preening rectitude)

    Barr followed the rules. If he’s lucky Trump will fire him, therefore salvaging what’s left of his (Barr’s) reputation.

    1. “There’s still evidence of that, but my cartoon would not have kept the Justice Department investigation of Hunter Biden secret before the election. He would have found a way to leak it, or acquiesce to others leaking.”

      God forbid he had let anything get in the way of the media pretending it wasn’t a real scandal.

      1. Tell us what scandal did the media pretended away…

        (1) The prosecutor Shokin nonsense? That was the stupidest excuse for a made-up bogus scandal we’re ever likely to see.

        (2) The “revelations” in the kompromat laptop? Leaving aside the obvious – that the laptop story reeked to high heavens – there was no scandal there as well. Hunter may have gotten a handshake from pops for a businessman. Hunter may have discussed cutting dad in on a deal after Joe Biden became a private citizen. And that was on a deal that went nowhere.

        Whatever Russian hacker acquired Hunter’s messages & regardless of the terms Andrii Derkach demanded from Giuliani to hand them over, the final result sure didn’t amount to much.

        (3) Or maybe you see a scandal in the mere intersection of Hunter’s money-grubbing to his father’s office. Fair enough, but it would be interesting to see you apply that standard evenly. Michael Flynn was 10X more corrupt than Hunter & yet you see him as a holy martyr. What about the Trump family’s dealings around the world during the last four years? What about Ivanka’s special fast-track treatment from China? What about Kushner seeking a financial white-knight on 666 Fifth Avenue?

        While practically running the Trump transition, Kusher was travelling the globe hat-in-hand begging for money from the former Prime Minister of Qatar, the South Korean state-owned Korea Investment Corporation, and the Communist-party connected Anbang Insurance Group of China. Kushner faced total financial ruin without bail-out funding – even while he led the effort to assemble a new administration.

        Or maybe apply the standard to Trump himself. After his election Mar-a-Lago doubled their membership fee. For his entire presidency Trump made it damn clear that anyone who ponied-up the fees got his ear. It would have been simple to ensure no lobbying business was conducted on the property. Trump did the exact opposite; he made it clear it would be.

        So, tell us Brett : Did these stories gotten more or less coverage than allegations about Hunter? Try being honest for once…..

        1. If lobbying legitimized the Congress, then why doesn’t it legitimize the presidency? And why should having the money to predict where the president or Congress Man shall be at any particular time really matter?

  9. “The first reply brief focuses on rebutting the factual and legal claims made by the four defendant states. The brief starts with the facts, and AG Paxton’s choice of emphasis here is quite interesting, as the brief leads with an extended defense of statistical stupidity contained in the initial filing and the Cicchetti declaration (hence the newly drafted supplemental declaration which is attached). Here, the Paxton brief argues “Dr. Cicchetti did take into account the possibility that votes were not randomly drawn in the later time period but, as stated in his original Declaration, he is not aware of any data that would support such an assertion.” In other words, because he does not know anything about the two sets of voters, it was okay to assume they were identical for purposes of assessing the statistical likelihood that they would vote differently.”
    Your statement seems at least a bit erroneous, only those voting by mail are at issue. The general notion is that mail-ins were overwhelmingly from Democrats for Biden. We have the data, about half voted by mail, 44% for Trump and the rest for Biden. This results in what you call “statistical stupidity”, but would be expected to replicate the same split, you would need to have a tremendous number of Republicans who voted for Biden, all voting by mail only. When 10,000 mail-in ballots are suddenly tabulated, they should be about 44% for Trump, but in this case they were a genuine statistical stupidity with more like 10% for Trump.

    1. We have the data, about half voted by mail, 44% for Trump and the rest for Biden.

      this data is BS

      several of the largest Gerogia counties went over 70 percent for Biden, and any particular group of ballots could statistically vary from that by an unknown amount
      you are making things up to make yourself feel better
      statistics are not elections, and do not prove fraud

  10. Congress by the authority vested in it by Article I, Section4, Clause 1 may make or alter state election regulations at any time. Whatever opinions Supreme Court Justices may have, it is the Congress who has the final word on shall be President and Vice President.
    Read the Constitution for yourself. You don’t have to trust my quotation of it.
    Will the Congress act on its authority? What is their record in upholding the Constitution thus far? It doesn’t look encouraging does it? How does a fascist police state suit you?

    1. That section applies to elections of Senators and Representatives, not the President and VP.

Please to post comments