Posted on 12/09/2020 6:10:12 AM PST by ml/nj
The state of Texas filed an audacious lawsuit in the Supreme Court on Tuesday against four other states, asking the justices to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors.
The suit, filed by the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, said Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had engaged in election irregularities that require investigation, and it asked the court to “enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the defendant states’ legislatures.”
Legal experts called the suit outlandish, and it comes at a time when Mr. Paxton is battling a scandal in his own state over whistle-blower allegations that he engaged in bribery and other wrongdoing to illegally help a wealthy Austin real estate developer and political donor.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Gotta love the straightforward reporting here!
ML/NJ
So? What's the problem here?
The old, tired, gray lady clutching her pearls again.
“Legal experts called the suit outlandish”
Yes, SOME legal experts called it outlandish, and even said it would be blown off, but THOSE experts were wrong!
[well, audacity has been a good thing since 2008, right? “The audacity of hope”, anyone recall that? ]
Very few of the lawsuits Trump’s legal team filed since Election Day have really worried the left,
but when Texas AG Ken Paxton filed directly with the USSC Monday, lefties immediately began freaking out.
They are alarmed because even they understand that Paxton’s suit has the potential to flip the election.
Texas is even disregarding the obvious fraud in the early results there in this case.
Equal protection without accoutrements is the way to go. (h/t Ingtar)
State on state lawsuits MUST be heard by SCOTUS!
The headline was positive, while the rest of the article went straight to the standard Slimes name-calling and finger-pointing.
It is almost as though the headline writer was different than the article writer...
This article pulls out all the stops, doesn’t it. Frames the suit as audacious to immediately signal “bad.” Legal “experts” to claim that the suit is trash. A smear of the Texas AG. And that’s all in one paragraph. The oft-quoted Goebbles was a piker compared to the NYT.
Just the Times being pretentious.
Just the Times being pretentious.
Ted Cruz sees this fight over the integrity of the 2020 election as a way to reintroduce himself as a defender of fair and free elections. If Trump is reelected, Cruz will be formidable in the 2024 primaries.
“Audacious”
Ok, but what’s missing here, in this article? Nothing about “Without Evidence” or whatever else they keep saying.
Tells me that they’re scared Shiiteless of this suit.
” Audentes Fortuna Juvat “
The Texas case is really a simple question: Did the defendant states follow laws passed by the legislature and were those laws constitutional on state and federal grounds.
The facts should be black and white, yes or no.
The big question is remedy.
No doubt the same ones who were jumping with glee over Trump/Russia collusion allegations/investigations/etc.
[If Trump is reelected, Cruz will be formidable in the 2024 primaries.]
NY Slimes made this news because SCOTUS will hear it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.