The U.S. Supreme Court is competing in the Texas case election results

Subscribe to our daily newsletter, The Brief, to get the most important Texas news quickly to your readers. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Texas case, which has become a vehicle for Republicans across the country to oppose the victory of President-elect Joe Biden. In a few brief sentences, the High Court said it would not consider the case for practical reasons because it did not have the position to bring Texas. “Texas has not shown any judicial interest in the way another state conducts its elections,” the court wrote Friday evening in an unsigned verdict. The ruling could end President Donald Trump’s attempt to have the election results overturned by the courts as the election college deadline approaches quickly. The Texas Attorney General’s Office did not immediately send a request for comment Friday. Texas sued this week to challenge the election results of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, claiming that those states had implemented contagious changes in election practices that were illegal and called into question the election results. Those wartime states shot at the harsh response summaries that Texas had no business challenging the electoral ethics of other states. Legal experts warn that if Texas wins, the case will set a dangerous precedent for allowing states to interfere in each other’s affairs and for the courts to overturn settled, certified election results. “Let us be clear,” Pennsylvania’s attorneys wrote in the state’s response summary. “Texas is calling this court to remove the vote of the American people and elect the next president of the United States. That Fastian call must be firmly rejected.” Texas’ case leaned heavily on discredited claims of electoral fraud in the swing states. Electoral officials and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have no evidence of electoral fraud. The case quickly developed into a dividing line between the blue and red states across the country – and, for Republicans, a test of loyalty to Trump, with some Republican-led states refusing to support Trump in the case; Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Waston said the “legally correct decision was a politically convenient decision.” But more and more Republicans chose to join. . In a series of tweets, the president called it “big” and then said “this is very strong, all Criteria Med”. By Thursday, with more than a dozen weights on each side, it had attracted the involvement of almost every state, as well as the approval of more than 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including a dozen Texas Republicans: U.S. representatives. The pair are Arrington, Brian Bobbin, Kevin Brady, Michael Burgess, Michael Cloud, Mike Conway, Don Grenshaw, Bill Flores, Louis Kohmert, Lance Gooden, Kenny Merchant, Randy Weber, Roger Williams and Ron Wright. If the court had heard the case, at Trump’s request, the U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz said he would have argued it. But the former Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Judge U.S. Sen. John Cornell said he was “not convinced” by the logic of the case. Court observers said the case was a long shot from the start. Trump has indicated that he hopes the High Court, now comprising three judges he has appointed, will turn the election into his path, but the judges are not interested in doing so. Earlier this week, a court dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by Republicans in Pennsylvania seeking to challenge Biden’s victory in the state. Judges Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated that they would have allowed Texas to bring the case, but they said they would “not offer any other relief.” None of Trump’s appointments point to any merit in this case. Legal experts called the case dangerous and unprecedented in its intentions. “Garbage, but dangerous garbage,” said election legal expert Rick Hassan. Chip Roy, the Texas Republican nominee who once served as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s top aide, called the case a “dangerous violation of the federal system,” which “almost certainly failed.” Hail Mary’s play for Trump in this case, hoping the court would hand him the victory that voters did not get. His campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits across the country in an attempt to thwart the election. But the lawsuit was probably funded by a lawsuit filed by Paxton, who filed a lawsuit against Nazareth on a two-decade-long roller coaster. Paxton drew attention again this week to learning of pro-Trump efforts and at the center of the conservative media ecosystem – when the FBI provided a sapon in the Texas Attorney General’s Office as part of its criminal investigation, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Eight senior aides told officers they believed it was illegal to use Paxton to help political donor Nate Paul. Their allegations are said to have sparked an FBI investigation. Critics have speculated that Paxton may have used the case as a way to seek a presidential apology from Trump. A Paxton spokesman dismissed the suggestion as “a ridiculous conspiracy theory.” Separating from recent allegations, Paxton was indicted on the worst bond fraud charges in 2015, but has yet to come to trial amid side fights over location and attorney pay. Currently, the case is being delayed indefinitely as the Houston Court of Appeals weighs the location issue. A presidential pardon does not protect the president from prosecution or public offenses. Some Texas Republicans responded immediately with disappointment and anger. Alan West, head of state GOP, clung to the disreputable claim that wartime states violated the law, saying secession was a logical response. “Perhaps law-abiding states should unite to form a union of states that abide by the constitution,” West said in a statement Friday night. .

Source