Missouri, 17 other states file supporting Texas suit to delay presidential elector appointment” foxnews


"Missouri led a group of 17 states that Wednesday afternoon filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Texas lawsuit aimed at delaying the appointment of presidential electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

The brief mirrors the argument of the Texas suit in saying that the states acted unconstitutionally when either their judiciaries or executive branches changed their elections laws. The Texas suit, and the states that support it, say that only state legislatures may set laws regarding how states appoint their presidential electors. 

"The integrity of our elections is of critical importance to maintaining our republic, both today and in future elections,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said in a statement. “The stakes of protecting our Constitution, defending our liberty and ensuring that all votes are counted fairly couldn’t be higher. With this brief, we are joining the fight."

The Trump campaign also filed a brief asking to join on the Texas suit on Wednesday.

"The illegal suspension or violation of state law thus calls directly into question the certification of the results of the elections in Defendant States for Vice President Joe Biden, Proposed Plaintiff in Intervention’s opponent in the election," its brief said. "President Trump’s interest in the outcome of this litigation could therefore not be more acute."

The brief filed by Missouri and the other states, which is officially a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, also warns that the changes enacted by the state executives and judicial branches opened the states' elections up to potential fraud."  foxnews


It appears to me that the Democrats in all their varied glory have become subversive of the Constitution except in so far as it supports the creation of a sham republic like the Soviet Union.  We will now see if SCOTUS will save us from that.  pl 


This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Missouri, 17 other states file supporting Texas suit to delay presidential elector appointment” foxnews

  1. Fred says:

    “a sham republic like the Soviet Union.”
    All the unconstitutional ‘stay at home orders’, mask mandates and declaring businesses (almost uniformly small independent competitors of multinationals or other big business) ‘non-essential’ has been giving everyone a taste of Democratic Socialism. This is looking more and more like a Color Revolution in action. I notice that there’s been essentially no action from the left’s trained street thugs – Antifa/BLM. Just like they are held in reserve to explode at the most opportune time to create an excuse for the deep state to complete their takeover.

  2. Bill H says:

    This is beginning to look like something that, maybe, the Supreme Court cannot ignore.

  3. Johny Conspiranoid says:

    “has been giving everyone a taste of Democratic Socialism”
    This is nothing like democratic socialism.
    “I notice that there’s been essentially no action from the left’s trained street thugs – Antifa/BLM”
    Because they are Soros stooge astroturf working for very rich people.
    “more and more like a Color Revolution” Yes, its looked that way from about a year ago. Chickens comming home to roost?

  4. Tom says:

    I read that as more than a request to the scotus to stop the steal. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but it reads to me like an acknowledgment that should the four states not be held to constitutional account, then those 17 states will stop following the constitution as well. The very valid point was made that the constitution is essentially an agreement between the states. Either they all abide, or none will. If the scotus punts and Biden becomes president, it will not be of 50 states. Worse than that, over 75 million folks voted for Trump. This is a significant portion of the us population who are against this outcome. They will not sit quietly by and accept this outcome.

  5. Barbara Ann says:

    So battle lines a drawn, nothing as clear cut as a Mason–Dixon line this time. I guess if the SCOTUS ducks this it will at least be clear what its views are re the worth of the Constitution. Is Google/YouTube now going to censor all reference to a lawsuit supported by 18 states and perhaps ban the search term “Federal Republic”? Oh I do hope they try.

  6. Degringolade says:

    I always try to spend time reading both sides. As I hang out here a lot, my views are pretty obvious, but I do spend time reading what the other side says.
    They are presenting idea that eighteen States Attorneys General have requested the Supreme Court to review the results of a federal election as an attack on the constitution.
    Run that by me again.
    Last time I looked, the outline of how this was approached was put together by some pretty smart folks who have bothered to read the constitution.

  7. Deap says:

    We are in a very organic, nutrient rich time in our relationship with our governing documents. We are now living a shared history with our Founders 230 year old voices.
    What the heck does that signed piece of paper actually say? Tis an easy read on its face. Good time for a renewal of vows.

  8. Deap says:

    The Constitution of the United States Preamble
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    1. Establish Justice
    2. Insure domestic tranquility
    3. Provide for the common defence
    4. Promote the general Welfare
    5. Secure the Blessing of Liberty
    ……to ourselves and our Posterity.
    Honest and fair elections …….insure domestic tranquility.

  9. Mark K Logan says:

    It’s a safe bet the SCOTUS will not. They had their chance and the answer was perhaps the briefest, clearest “FU” in the history of SCOTUS rulings, penned by none other than Scalito himself and with no dissenting opinions, not from Clarence, not from Amy, not even from Kavanagh. The problem is lack of evidence to back the assertions of fraud and after the recounts there is even less of that to be had.
    The only viable option may be Flynn’s ‘declare martial law’ idea.

  10. akaPatience says:

    Is it me or have any others sensed a rush to establish the perception of Biden as victor? First there was the ridiculous “Office of President-Elect” with all of its presidential trappings, then prospective cabinet appointees were quickly floated or named, policy stances pronounced, etc. It’s as though the thieves are setting up the narrative that if their cheating is exposed and justly remedied, they’ll be the aggrieved ones – that victory was stolen from THEM and not the other way around. In short, it’s all been a continuance of the usual leftist projection.

  11. Steve Kaczecka says:

    In 12 hours Trump will get another big FU

  12. Fred says:

    Roberts, to his everlasting shame, has put the court in a credibility losing position by his prior 4-4 ruling. The state of Texas, joined by one third of the states in the union, were not party to prior suits including whichever one you are referring to. If they were not going to make a ruling on the unconstitutional actions of four other states then they would not have ordered AZ, GA, MI, and PA to respond. I for one am looking forward to what those 4 bastions of integrity and equality have to say – in writing – for all of posterity to see the wisdom and righteousness of their cause.

  13. JohninMK says:

    It might be even simpler. The following is a quote
    Elections undecided by midnight are void & preempted by federal law – Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Decision)
    “When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 71-72 (1997)

  14. stueeeeeeeee says:

    Mark K Logan
    The Texas lawsuit is not about voter fraud. It concerns the process of elections. Texas has a strong case. It is undeniable that the executive and judicial branches of the named states illegally changed election laws/procedures without legislative approval. The law is on Texas’s side.
    The problem is the remedy. The courts/SCOTUS do not want to invalidate the results. How can they rule in Texas’s favor without invalidating the results? They can’t. Their ruling will likely have lofty language that will pay lip service to federalism and state’s rights and may even reproach the offending states, but will do nothing to change the results.
    I believe the SCOTUS should invalidate the results, because election law/process was circumvented by the offending states. As a consequence and as Texas has asked, allow the state legislatures to appoint the electors.
    All of this maybe for nothing. There is no guarantee that those state legislature appointed electors will vote for Trump, because the Republican party of the offending states have been complicit in allowing the illegal changes to election law/process. Here in GA, the Rep secretary of state and Rep governor had sign an illegal consent agreement with the Democrats that liberalized the absentee/mail in voting process. Rejection rates of ballots in the metro area fell from an average of 3% to 4% to 0.2%…even with fraudulent level of turnout.
    Election is over. The coup was successful.

  15. Deap says:

    SCOTUS does not “invalidate the results” of a state’s election. The states themselves invalidated the results when they chose to go rogue, rather than follow their own laws and the US Constitution.
    SCOTUS has no duty to even recognize sham elections, therefore they do not “throw them out”. SCOTUS just states the obvious – this was an invalid election based upon constitutional grounds because of X..Y…Z.
    Can’t hand someone a zirconium, and then demand they keep calling it a real diamond. What would be the point in that?

  16. Mark K Logan says:

    Here’s that decision. I’m not seeing that line about midnight deadline in it.

  17. Fred says:

    “because the Republican party of the offending states have been complicit in allowing the illegal changes to election law/process.”
    Those changes in mailing out ballots were by the Secretary of State in MI and in the extended dates for delivering and counting ballots by the SC of PA. I think you’ll find similar non legislative driven or approved changes in WI and GA.

  18. English Outsider says:

    Deap – worried about your (2) – “Insure domestic tranquility.”
    On the previous occasion the Supreme Court heard a case of this nature, and though the substance of the case was different, it does seem that the Supreme Court was taking into account the effects on “domestic traquillity” in making their decision.
    I submitted this link to the Colonel’s site earlier –
    “Among an undogmatic judge’s values may be the desire to depart from foolish consistency in a hard case, and he may “adopt an approach that is practical and instrumental”42 if it is necessary to render a useful decision that prevents an acute Constitutional crisis.”
    As said earlier – “Bluntly, and to a lay reader, it looks as if the Supreme Court chucks law out of the window and focusses on finding a decision that will cause the least fuss.”
    And there isn’t much doubt that if the Biden election were not confirmed there’d be a hell of a fuss and a lot of vandalism and disorder. So declaring a bent election bent might not be something the Supreme Court would want to do.

  19. turcopolier says:

    I have not failed to publish any of your comments. In fact the SCOTUS has heard quite few lawsuits among the states.

  20. Fred says:

    You should read the PA response to the case filed by PA. “Reeeeeeeee” best describes the opening summary.
    I think they’ll have a hard time saying 46 states performed an election with voting ending on 11/3 but PA chose to give itself, being an ‘equal’ state in the Union, 3 extra days. You know, so they could ensure their preferred candidate would win. Though they didn’t quite use that phrasing. I really liked the “PA law only requires observes be in the room” while votes are counted. Yes, and Rosa Parks was on the bus so what’s all the fuss about comes to mind.
    To make it even more interesting 18 states and the legislative branch of government of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania have joined with Texas. We should thank China for helping us ‘live in interesting times’.

  21. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Col. Lang & English Outsider,
    Yes, Colonel, you are quite correct. In my last position of employment, I was a staffer at a university law school library. One of my duties was as clerk of government documents. This included filing of US Supreme Court decisions, one of which categories was reserved for “Original” cases. These consisted entirely of intra-state lawsuits, and these were stipulated under the US Constitution to be strictly handled and adjudicated by the US Supreme Court. From court session to court session, the number of such actions varied, but they were not infrequent. This action brought by Texas, and joined in an amicus brief by quite a few other states, is potentially quite momentous both on current, highly charged matters, as well as being a precedent setting case in the juridical decisions of the Republic.
    Or, it could be a damp squib, should the Court choose to instead furrow its brow, and rhetorically shrug, gifting the citizenry with some sort of mendacious buck passing.

  22. Deap says:

    EO, so you claim we now extortion rule our country? And call that sell out “domestic tranquility”. That we sell out 230 years of our “exceptionalism” to some sniveling brats from Portland? You misjudge the depth of opposition to these astro-turf mobs.
    Take your argument out a few levels- rule by extortion, rule by threat of violence, or do you just hate America or are blinded by too much one-sided journalism that thinks the entire country is ready to explode when in fact it is a few inner city Democrat cesspits.
    You might want to reach out to those neighborhoods most affected by the last waves of civil unrest and see how much appetite they have for more. You will be surprised to learn Trump was delivering on his promises to inner cities; whereas decades of failed Democrat leadership created the toxic stews in the first place.

  23. Re says:

    Can the Supreme Court, order the four states in question to hold another vote?

  24. Buckeyelad says:

    We’ve all watched this train wreck of an election derail in slow motion. I think it is apparent to all who are not blinded by Trump hatred or simple willful ignorance that a fraud/coup/color revolution is unfolding before our eyes. The hearings by Giuliani and his team in the various states, with the sworn testimony (affidavits) and expert forensic analysis, were compelling. Murderers have been convicted with less evidence. Of course, the Texas suit does not address these issues, but it seems the ‘process issues’ may be the quickest route to redress – If the SC has the cajones to do what’s right. Today, I wrote the AG of KY, my current state of official residence, imploring Mr. Cameron to add KY to the Texas suit. Will the SC ignore half of the ‘Union’?

  25. ancientarcher says:

    For those of you waiting for the scotus to weigh in, I have one question. Do you think the scotus is above the corruption that most of the civilian govt is involved in that has allowed them to get away with this?
    Get real! scotus is as corrupted as the michigan house. Money goes everywhere and bends everyone. In a few days there will be a sham judgment verifying the legality of the election from the scotus. They are also in the take.
    Then the blathering idiot who can’t string together two proper sentences, had difficulty attracting double digit number of people to his rallies (I wonder if you can call it a rally if it has only 10 people) will take oath as potus. A shame!
    The rigging is done well and good. The path left for trump is:
    1) set up his own tv channel and news media. fox has been shown for what it is – a poisoned dagger used for back stabbing the conservatives. TrumpTV will have no issues getting 10s of millions of viewers.
    2) move from twitter to a more neutral platform. or start duplicating his tweets simultaneously on multiple platform, one of which he has to own/control – again not difficult given the support he has
    3) start calling for systems in place so that the dems can do this in 2024. tighten the election process. You guys can borrow ideas from all over the world – UK, India, Australia all have elections without such fraud. Surely, you can make changes to this system. It will be opposed by the dems who will want to rig the next one as well.
    4) put all his energies in getting the support in governing level in the states. Trump needs to get his own people in power at the state level and in congress. In 2 years, there will be a big battle – if the repubs minus rino ie trump’s people can take back control of the congress, it will position them well.
    This is a big fight for Trump – he has to prepare and fight for it. He has already lost the fight for the legitimacy of the election in the face of widespread corruption. The swamp has fought back and everyone can see the extent of its domination and in a few days you will see the swampy scotus in action!
    The real fight left is to position for the taking of the congress in two years and the 2024 election. That can only be done by creating your own institutions – TrumpTV vs MSM, people in congress loyal to you, etc, etc…
    If Trump or his successors don’t succeed the republic is done! I still have hope

  26. Kilo 4/11 says:

    @ Mark K. Logan: “Here’s that decision. I’m not seeing that line about midnight deadline in it.”
    Posted by: Mark K Logan | 10 December 2020 at 06:39 PM
    Here it is: “In speaking of “the election” of a Senator or Representative, the federal statutes plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make the final selection of an officeholder; and by establishing “the day” on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say. pp. 71-72.”
    The statute establishes “the day”, singular. A day ends at midnight.

  27. Kilo 4/11 says:

    @ English Outsider
    a judge following the law is “dogmatic”? Enforcing equal protection under the laws is “foolish consistency”?
    We’ve been in a “constitutional crisis” my whole life, beginning with the forced integration of the schools, gathering steam with the destruction of our freedom of assembly, reaching peak evil with Roe v Wade overturning the states’ prohibition of abortion, and now reaching peak arrogance with the destruction of our franchise in plain sight. The clock has run out on postponing the resolution of the crisis.
    …”if the Biden election were not confirmed there’d be a hell of a fuss and a lot of vandalism and disorder. So declaring a bent election bent might not be something the Supreme Court would want to do.”
    You are proposing that Americans be ruled by vandals and murderers, which is unsurprising advice from a resident of a country that countenances the likes of a Rotherham.
    America has not degenerated to the British level yet.

  28. Kilo 4/11 says:

    @ Deap: “SCOTUS does not “invalidate the results” of a state’s election. The states themselves invalidated the results when they chose to go rogue, rather than follow their own laws and the US Constitution.”
    Well said. That’s the heart of the matter.

  29. Fred says:

    So the Preamble to the Constitution is the real law of the land, just like the poem on that statue in New York Harbor.
    “You might want to reach out to those neighborhoods most affected by the last waves of civil unrest and see how much appetite they have for more”
    The fine people in Minneapolis, represented by their elected government, just defunded the police by a few million. News apparently not available in coffee shops in Santa Barbara. Also apparently unknown to you is that EO has been commenting here for years, unlike you. “Take your argument out a few levels” which is what you are doing with your recent commentary. Apparently you’re not having the desired effect by routinely posting 3 comments in a row and beating the drum against monolithic government employee voting and SEIU membership influence on politicians.
    You are advising surrender and hope to win the next elections that won’t be rigged better next time by the people you are willing to let get away with it now. The real fight is now. Making new TV channels and social media will have no effect when Kamala issues an new executive order on “hate speach” defined by the left. It should be obvious that there will be no alternate social media unless it is government approved.
    Kilo 4/11,
    “We’ve been in a “constitutional crisis” my whole life,”
    True that. I think mandatory vaccines are going to sink Roe vs. Wade since privacy to discuss medical treatment with your doctor and ‘my body my choice’ aren’t needed by the left any longer.

  30. Barbara Ann says:

    Wholeheartedly agree with your response to ancientarcher, the real fight is now and it isn’t over. If they let Trump have a TV channel after this it’ll be for one reason only; to keep the natives from getting too restless. It’ll be tightly controlled and shut down if it looks like becoming a threat. 2024 will be a return to the choice of either brand of the Uniparty.

  31. Artemesia says:

    ancientarcher’s righteous rant is posited on notion that Trump is NOT corrupt.
    While completely opposed to Biden / Harris ascent to White House, I also suggest that we little people start looking at other candidates, not Trump, for Congressional seats as well as presidency.
    South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has demonstrated strength and common sense against severe headwinds.

  32. A. Pols says:

    This will all be papered over to avoid any admission that the electoral process lacks gravitas. They will install Biden on Jan 20.
    It would never do for the exceptional nation to appear no better than all these inferior countries that have electoral fraud and rigged elections. It’s part of our national identity that we don’t do these things and even if the debate continues after Jan 20, every effort will be made by the various forms of media to portray the opposition as disgruntled sore losers.
    I don’t like this process and make to attempt to excuse or justify it; I’m just calling it as I see it.

  33. Chuck Light says:

    With apologies for linking to a left-leaning online publication, because this information may not have made it into other publications, it now appears that the United States of America has been enlarged to include two new states, known as “New California” and “New Nevada.”
    These two new members of our union of States have apparently filed a brief with the Supreme Court seeking to be heard on the dispute between Texas and the four Defendants in this lawsuit. For real.

  34. Chuck Light says:

    From the Supreme Court docket in Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al.:
    The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

  35. English Outsider says:

    Colonel – Yes indeed, the reference was published some time ago. My apologies for not stating that clearly. I dug the reference up again because it seemed to me that one could not place too much hope in the US Supreme Court getting to the bottom of the matter.
    Hope I’m wrong. Not because the Democrats are pro-EU. I believe that has little real significance in the current UK/EU standoff. But because I believed that a second term, with Trump this time firmly in the saddle, held out real hope that the Trump 2016 platform could really get under way.
    The satisfaction in Europe over Trump’s defeat is general –
    ““With Trump gone, populist politicians will not only enjoy less domestic legitimacy; governments will face a higher international price for nationalist stances,” wrote Philippe Legrain, a former economic adviser to the president of the European Commission.”
    “Nationalist”, “Populist”, “non-observance of the “rule of law” all being code for the revolt against uncontrolled crony government and for the rejection of Progressive values.
    Fools. What cannot give must break. The ancien regime in Europe is celebrating what it sees as a victory. All it is doing is holding the safety valve down tighter.

Comments are closed.