Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
scrollock
Missouri ansluter sig nu till Texas-stämningen! 19 delstater totalt deltar nu i stämningen!
Ohio har samtidigt inlämnat en egen stämning som är helt egenhändig och inte affilierad med vare sig Texas et al eller Pennsylvania et al., där man istället vill utröna elektorernas roll.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missouri-5-more-states-ask-to-join-texas-supreme-court-election-case-against-georgia-others
Intressant från din artikel:
Citat:
"This is political posturing through litigation. Not one of those attorneys general believes they are entitled to win," Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig told Fox News. Lessig is a former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and currently works with Equal Votes, a nonprofit that seeks to end winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes in states.
Lessig continued: "As lawyers, that should stop them from signing onto such an action. But they are acting as politicians, not lawyers here – to the detriment of the rule of law."
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the only question at this point is the manner in which the Supreme Court will hand Texas a loss in the case.
"This set of lawsuits has met with rejection, so far as I know, from every single federal judge to have ruled on them," Olson said. "The Supreme Court will reject this one too, and the only real question is whether it will do so through orders declining even to hear the case (which is what I predict) or by taking up the case and promptly dismissing on the merits."
Ilya Shapiro, the director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, pointed out that Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, the person who would normally be leading his state's litigation, has not worked on the suit.
"[It is] basically a political maneuver more than a real legal lawsuit," Shapiro said. "There's a reason why the Texas solicitor general's name isn't on the case."
Among the several reasons why the Texas lawsuit is all but certain to fall flat is its timing after the election. A principle called "laches," Olson said, "doomed the suit that tried to throw out Pennsylvania's mail-in votes, so it dooms this claim."
He said a party cannot bring a case that could have been addressed in an orderly fashion before "at exactly the time most disruptive and prejudicial to the rights of third parties (such as, in this case, innocent voters who relied on their states' approved methods)."
There is also the fact the "safe-harbor" day for elector selection has already passed, which Olson says harms Texas' case too.
"Standing," or whether a party is permitted to bring a suit in a certain case, also goes against Texas, according to Lessig.
"Not without a radical (and hence, certain to be perceived a politically motivated) change in standing doctrine," will the Supreme Court say that Texas and the other states may sue.
And on the merits of the case specifically, Olson says, Texas would also lose because "the imagined 'rule' is universally ignored since states have in fact allowed their governors, judiciaries or both to make rulings and determinations affecting the manner in which presidential elections are held and electors thus chosen."
"Texas has done this too," Olson added.
Bra sammanfattning kring hur meningslös denna stämning är.
