In the afternoon, the court’s cut erupted with summaries responding to a lengthy lawsuit invalidating millions of votes and demanding the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. At the same time, countless states and more than 100 members of Congress have filed so-called “court friend” or “amicus” abbreviations on both sides of the issue, educating judges on every angle of confusion – or at least getting political points. The Supreme Court is the zero of inter-state fighting. Now the great wait begins. What’s next? Under normal circumstances, Paxton, which opened the case, is likely to respond to the fiery summaries filed Thursday afternoon. Lawyers for the wartime states did not reduce their words. For example, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania is here: “Let us be clear. Texas is calling this court to cast the vote of the American people and elect the next president.” Paxton, who has never been ashamed of a war, has a lot to say about it. Although judges can act before they get that final summary, they are usually waiting. They did not point out their plans. At midnight on Friday, the judges will pick up their phones and dial the court’s usual closed door conference. Traditionally, this is the August affair in the courtroom’s elegant conference room, where judges discuss pending matters. There are no clerks, no staff allowed in the room, and Junior Justice is accused of having someone knock on the door. That much has changed with Kovit, and now they have to hold their discussion over the phone. As recent telephone oral arguments have shown, some judges seem tired of discussing complex issues without the benefit of face-to-face contact. During the conference, they may discuss pending matters. They have to decide how to deal with Paxton’s three demands: they should suspend the election results in four states, consider his case in a speedy time and agree to allow the case to be brought. Which judges is important to see? Nine, really. Just as the attempt to oust Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania was rejected on Tuesday, the order, which was not signed in one sentence, could eventually be obtained. The judges do not have to say how they voted, but in this case Paxton will need five votes to get what he wants. But one thing is for sure Chief Justice John Roberts would not like such an order to reflect a divided court. He would like the court to speak officially, without any public opposition. As for Trump, he hopes his own appointments – Neil Korsch, Brett Kavanagh and Amy Connie Barrett – will side with him. Why are so many states involved? Although the case has challenged four states with Texas, it has grown into a controversy with Texas involving 18 Republican prosecutors generals and 22 Democrat-led states and regions supporting Biden-winning war states. With voters fully aware that this may be their last chance to vote on Monday, they are jumping on the bandwagon, but often, in purely ideological ways. Their goal is to bring the court’s attention to every aspect of the case and to advise the judges about the possible consequences of any order. Other Benefit Advertising. This is an opportunity to seek support from the respective sites, even in one that does not go anywhere in court. Remind me who is on which side: Texas. Biden claims to have won: Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. GOP attorneys general support Texas: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. States / Territories with Democrats supported by Defendants: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Island, Vermont, Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Will the judges read these amicus summaries? It is unusual but unprecedented that there are so many summaries for a case like this between states before judges act. However, now that court members are well aware of the legal issues at hand, they are aware that permission to come straight to court in Texas, even if allowed, could set an undesirable precedent in the electoral area. Judges often summarize summaries that seek a perspective worthy of the writer’s valuable time. However, judges have long and hard to think about many of these issues, and they were largely responsible for the court action granted by the election deadline. They may already be set in their comments. The court is also busy this week. On Thursday morning, it released four comments from cases heard before this fall (all 8-0 results). On Thursday, the judges considered and rejected Brandon Bernard’s request for a moratorium on executions. What do Democrats say? Biden won by a large margin and other Democratic attorney generals say Texas has no “standing” or legal right to bring the case. While it is true that inter-state conflicts may come directly to the Supreme Court under its so-called “original jurisdiction” they are often reserved for inter-state conflicts over issues such as borders or water rights. Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua L. Kaul stressed the point, arguing that the attempt to thwart another state election was “infiltration”. The constitution leaves electoral rules to the states. Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr said the Supreme Court should not rule on such a dispute because Texas cannot prove direct legal harm. Carr had another idea: “There is another forum where the parties (unlike Texas) can stand and challenge compliance with Georgia’s own electoral laws: Georgia’s own courts.” They also said that Paxton had been waiting a long time to bring the case. As Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said: “The election is over in Michigan.” What do Republicans say? There is an emphasis on the notion that states changed electoral rules during corona virus outbreaks without going to their legislatures, and GOP argues that Section 2 of the Constitution requires that proper step. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmidt filed a summary on behalf of several states (including Louisiana, which was mispronounced in the filing). He echoed Paxton that non-legislative state actors changed the rules in wartime states, which led to “unconstitutional administration of elections” in the states. But many of those issues have already been prosecuted, and his summary indicated that there was no massive fraud. In fact even Attorney General William Barr of the United States has stated that there is no such comprehensive fraud. Which members of Congress are challenging the election? More than 100 House Republicans, including minority whip Steve Scholis, have signed an amicus summary in support of Texas. Among the signatories are several legislators from four states where Trump and Texas are trying to oust millions of votes: four from Georgia, four from Michigan, seven from Pennsylvania and one from Wisconsin. Are you being thrown out what will happen to their election if the votes somehow happen? It did not come. Are all Republicans with Paxton and Trump? Absolutely not. Influential Conservatives spoke out against the lawsuit this week. Utah Republican Gary Herbert went so far as to say that he did not accept the state attorney general’s decision to sign an amicus summary. “This is an irrational use of taxpayer money,” Herbert said in a statement. Carter Phillips, one of the most respected appeals lawyers in the country, appears frequently before judges and weighs briefly against Paxton. In his Amicus summary, Phillips stressed that the Constitution and federal law authorize states to handle their own electoral procedures. Not the Supreme Court. Texas GOP Representative Chip Roy posted on Twitter that he would not join the amicus summary with other Republican members of Congress because “I believe this case represents a serious violation of the federal system and sets a precedent for a state to ask for federalism. Filed his own summary stating that he did not support any party. But in reality the government was very critical of Paxton: “The relief Texas seeks would undermine the very foundations of our federal system: the states are sovereign, free to govern themselves.” Where is Joe Biden? Democrats representing a voice that does not exist. They do not file because they believe the case is a long-term effort, and they fear that what they are filing may bring some sort of legitimacy to the controversy. What is Trump doing? Tweet, mostly. He spoke to states and lawmakers joining his search, as well as repeated the lie that he had won the election. (You should also read the factual verification of CNN’s Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam filed in Trump’s Supreme Court.) He had a dozen GOP lawyers at the White House on Thursday. At a Hanukkah party at the White House on Wednesday night, Trump told guests, “With the help of some very important people – if they have the wisdom, if they have the courage – we are going to win this election.” The crowd chanted “Four more years.” சி.என்.என் இன் அல்லி மல்லாய், சாம் ஃபோசம், கிறிஸ்டின் வில்சன் மற்றும் டேனியல் டயஸ் ஆகியோர் இந்த அறிக்கையில் பங்களித்தனர். .
Source