Dissident Veteran For Peace

Yesterday, the Texas Attorney General filed a motion to have the US Supreme Court consider the State of Texas' complaint on 2020 presidential election irregularities and improprieties in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The four defendant states have already submitted their certificates of ascertainment regarding their presidential electors to the National Archives.

In the complaint, which, again, the Court has not yet agreed to hear, Texas is thus asking the Court to order:

E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States' legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.

Here are my thoughts:

1. The Texas action is the best pled and most concise case I've seen so far alleging problems in the 2020 presidential election. It's far better than the dumpster fire pleadings offered by Sidney Powell that I've read.

2. I think the State of Texas should have standing but that is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition and it's motion comes awfully late.

3. I have not followed the lower state and federal court election cases closely enough to say how persuasive the evidence is of substantial issues with the election so I will not presume to know how the Supreme Court should or will rule (I mention this because the Texas complaint appears to rely heavily on lower court filings and opinions). If the allegations are substantially true as pled then I would hope the Court would agree to hear the complaint; however, I am skeptical that Texas is on solid legal and evidentiary ground.

4. I think the statistical evidence offered by Charles J. Cicchetti, PhD is flawed, unpersuasive, and harmful to the case. Cicchetti tested the hypothesis "that other things being the same" Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden "would have an equal number of votes" (see Cicchetti Declaration at ¶¶ 11-13). But we know "other things" beyond alleged election irregularities were far from the same in 2016 and 2020. For example, among other things, Trump was running as an incumbent heading an administration beset by personnel instability, incompetence, and a lack of discipline.

5. If, as seems likely, the Supreme Court refuses to hear this complaint then it's probably game over for all the election challenges.

6. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this complaint then it's a game changer and, although I never want to underestimate their capacity for dishonesty, the mainstream media will probably be compelled to drop their mantra that claims of election irregularities are "baseless", etc. We'll probably also see violent protests by Trump haters.

7. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this complaint then to open up the possibility that Trump stays in the White House for another term the Supreme Court would have to invalidate the election results in at least three of the four defendant states. If they do agree to hear the complaint then I predict they will overturn the election results in fewer than three states and send Biden to the White House with an unchanged or, more likely, smaller Electoral College margin.

See also:

• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations III
• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations V
  

Labels: Biden, law, media, politics, Supreme Court, Trump, voting

# posted by VFPDissident @ 12/08/2020 11:09:00 PM