Will it make a difference? Texas et al election lawsuit

Ever been to one of the meteor craters in West Texas or Arizona. Impressive, eh?

Texas has filed a lawsuit against four other States over the 2020 elections. It has just been joined by Louisiana and Missouri; added to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota: that is eleven States. Many say more States will join as well.

See the source image

Townhall seems to have a good news report – and a little bit of analysis – of this action. To this engineer, non-attorney, it seems to make sense. In fact, several of us discussed whether or not some state would try just this, several weeks ago.

In fact a FedGov website explains why this suit can skip the usual (contaminated) federal court process in which the Trump campaign and many others have been stonewalled: Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states…

I don’t think that it would be a shock to understand that the nine nazgul are not happy about this case. (Or at least, not a majority of them.) It dumps them into the raw, brutal politics, not the rarified kind they like. The defendants: four states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) are even less happy: they are being challenged by their peers. (Who in their opinion are low-class, hickish trash.)

I assume, given the awesome magical powers (sarcasm here) that SCOTUS has been granted over the years, that they COULD refuse to hear the case. Despite the clarity of the constitutional provision, and the logical sense of it.

But we should ask what the consequences can be on the various potential responses.

If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, this will further weaken confidence in the court system and especially in the Supreme Court itself. The nine nazgul, if they refuse, will show themselves as weak, unwilling to address tough issues and defend the constitution – or corrupt as part of the deep state counter-revolutionaries intent on gutting American liberty – even what is left of it.

Increased skepticism about the neutrality and integrity of the courts, very much deserved, will spread. This in turn will lead to more fractures in the formerly united States. Dangerously deep and broad fractures.

But what if SCOTUS hears it?

If they decide in favor of the eleven States, thus invalidating the 2020 election in those States, it throws the presidential election (and possibly House and Senate elections) into the Congress. A situation that the FedGov and Congress have not faced since 1876. The outcome of that is very much in doubt. IF party discipline is maintained and the GOP does not dump on Trump, he gets a second term. But if the GOP loses the races for Georgia’s senators on 5 January, he may end up with Kammie the Commie as his second VP.

That would be a spot of fun and humor in an otherwise bleak picture.

Of course, there may be enough Republican congresscritturs who are never-Trumpers who will still give the election to Uncle Joe.

But the SCOTUS decision, I fear, will be immediately viewed by the SJW Street Mob and the Extreme Democrats/Biden-buddies as outright SCOTUS endorsement of Trump and all he represents in their minds. The protests, riots, looting and more promised for 4 November might erupt. Especially in the Red States and these eleven States who had the gall to sue. With tempers rising quickly, the reaction might be itself violent. Not just by authorities, but by others sick and tired of the Pandemic Panic, Lockdown, political corruption, and past riots and protests. Mini-civil-wars could be the result in urban areas.

And if the Congress votes for both Trump and Pence? Then expect the already-stated threats of secession (by California, Washington, Oregon, and more) to be restated, and action taken to do so, while the protests, riots and destruction of cities picks up still more – probably carried into suburbs and even rural areas. And armed militia no longer just threaten but start to take action. Action which very well may resemble ethnic cleansing. To which many people will react to defend themselves, their communities, and their beliefs.

But what if the Nazgul find in favor of the four states? Not only will the eleven States and their supporters in other States have very good reasons to be angry, but SCOTUS will have demonstrated that the Constitution is a dead letter, and neither legality nor morality have any further role in the rule of the FedGov over the States and the people.

The fallout from that? While unlikely to immediately go out and protest, riot, and especially unlikely to loot and torch anything and everything, the anti-Biden factions will seek ways to fight back. As will, very likely, the regimes of those eleven states. Whether those are more legal actions – especially in their own State court systems, or actions such as playing the purse-string game in reverse, or something else, there will be MORE disruption. For example, could the Red States borrow from the Blue States’ playbook and launch boycotts against them? Could they do reverse lockdowns and border checks to refuse to allow goods destined for Blue States from leaving?

Whatever actions are taken, it is clear that (again) the former Union will be fracturing badly. Very badly.

In the meantime, at least parts of the FedGov will be paralyzed. And the screams of the Left, and the governors (often just dictators, now) of these four States, and their allied States (such as California, Washington, New York, and Illinois) to “reform” the “nation” will be loud. And backed by threats. And pressure on Uncle Joe and Kammie the Commie to punish Trumpers and anyone (and everyone) that had anything to do with Trump. Even their own SJWs.

Right now, I cannot see a positive outcome. Some points of amusement, maybe. But not a good situation and a resolution that does not involve violence, secession, or more.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Will it make a difference? Texas et al election lawsuit

  1. SCOTUS could simply deny the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, without comment.

    If they decide to take up the case, the dismissal would probably be uglier. As Rick Hasen puts it:

    “My view in brief: this is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it’s too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).”


    • TPOL Nathan says:

      Excellent points.
      My question is a simple one. What is the public perception, on all sides of the fight, likely to be? And the results of that? More and more people are willing to fight, and the rabble-rousers are doing their best to do so.


    • TPOL Nathan says:

      Tom, another couple of comments directly to me (not to be published as attributed to the folks who told me) that are interesting.
      1. Will it make any difference to SCOTUS that this filing is now more than 20% of the Union? (My own thought is “fat chance.”)
      2. Is this a “new Southern Confederacy” attempt? After all, all but one of the States is in the South, and the one that is not has South (South Dakota) in its name. (Think the guy was trying to be funny, but…) What is also interesting is that the SD Attorney General filed this, at the same time he is fighting against a lawsuit against the voter approval of cannabis. The lawsuit seeking to overturn the election on those two ballot issues is backed by the governor herself.


      • My take on the public perception is that it’s split — most of the general public, including most Trump supporters, understand that he lost and is just pulling one of his usual con jobs; but some of his supporters have convinced themselves that there’s some “there” there to the con.

        It’s not a “new Confederacy” attempt. It’s a few politicians who have hitched their wagon to Trump’s star, throwing in with the con because they know it will keep some of the Trump base energized.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s