WASHINGTON – Attorney General for Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia on Thursday slammed President-elect Joseph R. Snyder in a blistering speech condemning Republican efforts to disrupt the election. Biden Jr. called the bold move an insult to democracy and the rule of law. The lawsuit was filed by the Republican Attorney General of Texas and supported by his GOP colleagues in 10 states and 106 Republican members of Congress. , A politicized attempt to override the will of the electorate in recent American history. President Trump asked him to intervene in the case, in the hope that the Supreme Court would grant him a second term that he had decisively lost. Mr. The case is the latest in a surprisingly failed legal attempt by Trump and his allies to overturn the results, with no evidence that judges at all levels mocked or condemned the cases without merit. Legal experts have also ridiculed this recent case, which contradicts the normal principles of the federal system, making the bold claim that the Supreme Court should investigate and overhaul the electoral systems of the four states by one-fifth order. The responses of four people were represented by the states – three Democratic Attorney Generals, and in Georgia, one Republican – who extensively criticized Texas’ extraordinary request that the Supreme Court act as a kind of trial court in investigating election irregularities with the goal of expelling millions of votes. The court should send a clear and vague signal that this treacherous abuse of the judicial process should not be perpetuated and should never be reflected in such abuses. ”“ Let us be clear, ”the summary continued. “Texas is calling on this court to cast the American vote and elect the next president of the United States. That Fastian call must be firmly rejected.” Georgia’s Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, appeared particularly shocked by the Texas lawsuit. Further confirming and certifying the election results – again and again. However, Texas has sued Georgia anyway. “In short, Texas could not tell other states how to conduct their election, and its filing was a lie, a task left to each state by Wisconsin,” Wisconsin said. . ”Wisconsin has held its election and its voters have chosen a successful candidate for their state. Texas’ attempt to overturn that choice has no legal basis or factual basis. “The Republican attempt to thwart the election in the Supreme Court comes just days before an electoral college majority votes for Mr Biden on Monday. Mr. Driven by Trump’s conservative allies, he currently enjoys his political support and claims he was treated unfairly. The lawsuit was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Mr Paxton has been charged in a bond fraud case and faces separate charges of abusing his office by several former employees to help a political donor. He has denied the allegations. Mr. The entry issue is that the case is not in the Supreme Court, according to summaries filed by four states that Biden won. While the Constitution gives the court “original jurisdiction” to hear conflicts between states, it uses that jurisdiction sparingly, usually in water rights cases and border disputes. Briefly stated that a state’s disagreement on how another state should not qualify to hold an election should not qualify. Any injury to Texas that could be prosecuted, the summaries say. “If Texas injury theory is accepted,” Wisconsin sums up, “it would be much easier to reconsider any election or conflict of voting rights that would injure a state, thereby exercising the original jurisdiction of this court. New York or California can sue Texas or Alabama in this court. Brief reports suggest that Texas waited a long time for any event. While waiting for the results of the Pennsylvania Summit, Million said, “Voting millions of voters after Pennsylvania has already certified its election results is a system that grossly undermines public confidence in the election, violates democratic policy and rewards Texas for its unforgivable delay and practical gameplay. Hundreds of voters relied on settled rules, ”he said. “Those voters should not be punished for not choosing Texas’ preferred candidate, and Texas should not be rewarded for unreasonable delay in bringing this action.” States also urged judges to reject their claim that Texas was seeking a radical settlement: The Pennsylvania summary, “In support of such a claim,” brought to Texas court was based solely on defamation charges and conspiracy theories. Texas is asking this court for its original jurisdiction in an election where millions of people vote in truly extraordinary circumstances, sometimes endangering their health and safety. “Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not hear challenges, and that the Supreme Court should not allow federal judges to judge political conflicts. “Federal judges are not licensed to redistribute political power between the two major political parties, are not given any authority in the constitution, and there are no legal standards to control and guide their decisions,” said Chief Justice John G. Snyder. Roberts Jr. wrote to the majority of Pennsylvania quoting that decision in its brief. “Accepting Texas’ view would be violent in the eyes of the Constitution and the framers, and would plunge this Court into ‘one of the most radically discriminatory aspects of American political life.’ Even a decision by Wisconsin to investigate this case would undermine confidence in democracy. “Texas insists that the intervention of this court is necessary to ensure confidence in the election,” he said briefly. “But it’s hard to imagine what could undermine confidence in democracy more than allowing this state to add a court in an attempt to overturn election results in other states.” “The trial of this case – regardless of the outcome – has created confusion, judges across the country have been found to be incompetent, and these false claims add to the uncertainty and distrust that has been created,” he said succinctly. The Supreme Court is likely to respond quickly to summaries before such summaries on Thursday. Submissions, sometimes within a few hours, the judges may decide whether to plead the case as early as Friday.In theory, there are several options in the court in which a temporary restraining order is issued restraining the voters of the states while Mr. Biden is prosecuting or putting the case on a speedy track. The court’s refusal to hear the case is often the result. Has received cadres and movements that want to intervene, from alliances of the red and blue states, Mr. From Trump and politicians and scholars. Most are predictable. But Ohio’s attorney general, Republican Dave Yost, filed a contradictory summary Thursday accusing Texas of conflict. The constitution, he wrote, “represents today what was a month ago.” In recent cases, the Red States have argued that state legislatures have the final say in setting electoral procedures under a section of the Constitution. Led by its legislature. “In the new case, Texas has asked the Supreme Court to overturn such legislative resolutions. Demands, “Mr. Yost quotes from Texas’s.” Such an order violates voter norms and is not respectful. ” The court was asked to rule, with Adam Liptack from Washington and Jeremy W. Peters from New York reporting.
Source