Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint in the Supreme Court of the US. The motion is wrongly described as a complaint here in other threads, although there probably is a proposed complaint filed with the motion. I haven't read the original motion or proposed complaint.

I did take a look at the amicus brief filed by the other states trying to join in Texas's motion because someone helpfully provided a link. The conclusion of that brief says:

"The allegations in the Bill of Complaint raise important constitutional issues under the Electors Clause of Article II, § 1. They also raise serious concerns relating to election integrity and public confidence in elections. These are questions of great public importance that warrant this Court’s attention. The Court should grant the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint."

The first hurdle Texas has is to have its motion granted. That won't mean Texas wins the lawsuit. The Court might well grant the motion to avoid giving the appearance of ducking the issue. On the other hand, they may duck the issue. Somehow, I don't think they'll punt.

So let's assume Texas's motion is granted and the complaint is filed. Then the defendant states would get x number of days to answer. From there, it gets interesting. The SC is the court of original jurisdiction in disputes between states, meaning it acts as both trial and appellate court. That means the Court would take evidence and hear witnesses. This could take months to complete. Then, regardless of whether the Court hears evidence, at some point there will be a schedule for filing legal briefing.

The Court may just punt because there isn't time to hold a trial before January 20. Preparing for a trial like this would normally take months to accomplish. How many witnesses? 300, you say? That's probably six months of trial time, being optimistic. But any court would be unlikely to find fraud without hearing the witnesses and watching them be cross-examined.

Another hurdle Texas faces is why did it wait so long after the election (more than one month) before bringing its motion for leave to file a complaint?

I'm not sure how any of this will turn out, but am willing to bet against Texas.


Jim

Maybe Texas should have consulted with you first ???

Absolutely! When you want to know what is right contact the Anchorage attorney!

Chris

States have until tomorrow afternoon to respond.

Why does any lawyer take weeks to months to do anything when the court will see it and decide most times in a matter of day's ?

I doubt the SC will pass it over, there is to much riding on them just going over it, they like politicians anymore worry about how things are perceived by them, instead of actually paying attention to the Constitution.

However I would guess that once a decision is rendered one way or another it's over but for the formalities of court progression, what that does for the President's office is either one is in or one is out, which is the question !

To the motion to file complaint, yes.

Jim

As reprehensible as I find John Roberts to be, do you really think he is going to allow SCOTUS to essentially say..........."sure it's ok to ignore the Constitution " ?? He might . Nothing would surprise me from him. But what about the rest of the court ? The illegalities/ irregularities are clear to every intellectually honest person.

Roberts is between a rock and a hard place and I hope it crushes the life out of him. This is all his fault !

when the head of the 'impartial' supreme court obviously hates the potus the situation is fubar

My hypothesis as to why they waited so long, is that it took a long time to research the various states voting laws and gather and compel enough cause that the court would be obligated to hear said motion.

Question, since Texas issued this to the SCOTUS in regards to several states voting laws and practices wouldn't that mean those votes are on hold in counting to the confirmation of Biden? If that is the case then Pelosi would be interim POTUS until said hearing occurs.

With Texas, 18 states and the POTUS all teaming up one would hope that the court would not punt on this case unlike the other cases they have punted on.

My bet is the case goes to trial it is ruled in favor of Trump and the left will have a melt down and will say Trumps Judges played favors. Remember how hard they drilled ACB about making this decision and they wanted a solid answer but got none. If Trump wins the impeachments and slander will continue.

No one rule is never ever bet against Texas......ever

You have to remember that SCOTUS ( not as currently configured) found a fantasy right to abortion and one to gay marriage in the Constitution. Nothing is anchored in reality anymore.

My vote is secession as ugly as that thought may be. Half the country has nothing at all in common with the other half. Let's divorce NOW peacefully

I agree 100% Just let us take Michigan back first...

One reason Texas may have waited so long after the election is that they were hoping like the rest of us that these states would be able to clean up their own messes internally, but when they didn't the next step was for someone responsible to step up and interviene.

So Ken, where would you make the boundaries?

Jim

Again, you opine that fraud must be proven. From that it is obvious you either have not read the complaint and/or you're sticking to your talking points.

I've read the bulk of the complaint and the gist of it is not that fraudulent votes were or were not cast. Specifically the complaint is that in each state, with examples cited, election law was changed by officials other than the legislature using authority not granted by the legislature.
Under the US Constitution only the legislature has sole authority to appoint electors as they see fit. In these cases they had already proscribed a legal and proper method for doing so yet that method was arbitrarily changed by governors, secretarys of state, local election boards and courts. This on it's face invalidates these elections without fraud being necessary.
Further, such elections in such a way they could allow fraud to occur in effect disenfranchised the citizens of Texas and the various other states and is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

That's the beauty of this wonderfully written complaint fraud does not need proven only the extra legal actions of election officials in the executive or judicial branches. All of which are public record without need for months of discovery.

They even go further to suggest the remedy in two possible forms. Order the state legislatures to select their electors as they see fit or declare the whole a contested election for the House of Representatives to sort out.

After all the is the Constitutionally proscribed process.

Forget fraud, this is a pure Constitutional question.

I think the easy way out for the SCOTUS is the call for a re-vote in the states in question

What say you ?

In person only.

X2

Time would be the killer on that plus under what Rules? The court would have to ensure that the right set of rules were followed.

That's gonna have to happen from here on out anyways , isn't it

We can put man on the moon , we should be able to conduct an emergency vote ......a secure legit votre