Supreme Court closes door on Trump election prospects: NPR

The Supreme Court is closing the door on Trump’s election prospects

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleven-hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.

The court’s action came on a one-page order, which denied the complaint “because it did not stand.”

With the support of President Trump, it has sought to sue in Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. But in order to bring a case to a state court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show that it has been injured. In essence, the court ruled that Texas could not show that other states were injured by holding their own elections.

“Texas has not shown any perceived interest in the judiciary in the way another state conducts its elections,” the court wrote.

Judge Samuel Alito, in conjunction with Judge Clarence Thomas, wrote that in their view, “the court has no intention of refusing to file a complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

But even if the two were allowed to file a complaint, they said they would not have provided any relief to Trump or Texas that they sought.

Kevin McCarthy, the leading Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, has linked his name with 125 fellow House Republicans who have supported Trump’s long-term effort. The most notable congressman who supported this case was McCarthy.

Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Case The four states where Biden was Certificate awarded to the winner: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The case, which was filed directly in the Supreme Court, was designed to be “an original” case, inciting one state against another.

Paxton said states that have been targeted by epidemics for violating federal law have made changes to their electoral practices. He accused the changes of aiding and abetting voter fraud. He asked the Supreme Court to extend the December 14 deadline for Election College voters to vote in those four states, arguing that more time was needed to investigate the election results.

Paxton’s lawsuit came in the wake of reports from state officials, including Republican State Office officials, attesting to the results, and statements by U.S. Attorney General William Barr that the judiciary had not found evidence of widespread fraud in this year’s election.

The Texas case set the stage for legal proceedings in the Supreme Court. Not only did President Trump seek to join the Texas case, but Trump won all 17 other states. Additional support will come, including a summary filed by a majority of GOP members of the US House of Representatives.

As of late Thursday, the four target states have backtracked on the summons filed in the Supreme Court.

“Texas is calling on this court to cast its ballot and elect the next president of the United States,” wrote Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr, president of the Republican Bar Association. “That Fastian call must be firmly rejected,” he said.

“Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do,” the state summed up. It “implemented the electoral process, managed the election in the face of the logistical challenges posed by Covit-19, and reaffirmed and certified the election results. Texas sued Georgia anyway.”

Pennsylvania was equally serious. “The court should not abide by this treacherous abuse of the judicial process and should send a clear and vague signal that the abuse should never be reflected,” it said in a statement. Wisconsin said it would “cancel” the Texas effort [Wisconsin’s] Choice [for president] Lack of legal basis or factual basis. ”

It is unclear how or why Texas Attorney General Paxton decided to take Trump’s water in this case. To date, state and federal courts at lower levels, including Trump-appointed judges, have found allegations of fraud unsubstantiated, especially since the four target states have Republican-controlled legislatures.

The unprecedented nature of the Paxton lawsuit, and the fact that the state’s chief appeals attorney, Kyle Hawkins, did not sign the Texas summary as he usually does, has sparked speculation that Paxton is apologizing. He is currently charged with bond fraud, and the FBI is investigating allegations of bribery and extortion.

Although the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over interstate conflicts, Such cases are rare, And are almost exclusively limited to conflicts that cannot be handled by other courts, such as borders or water rights.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Biden. Trump stepped down from the legal arena and hit his wagon instead of the Texas lawsuit, It calls “The case that everyone is waiting for.”

Trump is said to have held talks with some Republican attorney generals who met in Washington this week, urging Texas to support the case. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, Sen. of R-Texas. Several news outlets reported that Ted Cruz had agreed to represent Trump.

However, the initial reaction to the Texas case was optimally dismissed. Sen. John Cornin, R-Texas, said he was “openly fighting” with CNN[d] “Understanding the legal principle of the case, electoral conflicts in our system” are determined at the state and local level, but not at the national level. “

The Texas case had other issues. The first is the question of legal status. Basically, what is the legal position of Texas or its allied states to file a complaint about voting and vote counting procedures in other states?

Next, the Texas case asked the Supreme Court to delay voting in the four target states, but as noted by Edward Foley, a professor at Moritz Law College, the voter voting date is set by federal law under the Constitution, which requires that day be “uniform across the United States.”

The date chosen by Congress this year is December 14th.

Rick Hassan, an election law expert at the University of California, called Paxton’s case “dangerous junk.”

“It’s a case of masked news release,” He wrote.

“Even though the Supreme Court claims are excellent (they are not) it is too late to offer a solution,” he wrote.

On Friday evening after the decision, Hassan wrote that “courts across the country, with both Democratic and Republican judges, led to the rule of law” which was “really something to celebrate.”

Republican longtime lawmaker Benjamin Ginsburg told CNN on Wednesday that he did not think the Supreme Court would consider the case “for a moment.”

With three Trump appointments on the court and a newly appointed 6-3 majority Conservative Republican-appointed judges, the president hoped the Supreme Court would treat the case differently than “election experts.” He made a mistake.

As a result of court action, election college representatives in each state will cast their ballots on Monday, and Joe Biden, who was formally elected president, will go one step further, certifying election college votes in the House of Representatives just before he takes office on January 20.