In a huge development overnight, the State of Texas brought a direct SCOTUS claim against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin ("Defendant States") over their failure to comply with the Constitution in conducting the Presidential Election.
The essence of the case is as I wrote a month ago, the Constitution gives State Legislatures the exclusive right to determine how Electoral College electors are selected, including voting rules.
It does not give any role to the State Executive (Governor and Cabinet) nor the State Judiciary (Courts).
In all of the Defendant States, the Executive and/or Judiciary extended or changes the rules that the State Legislature had made in ways that assisted the Biden campaign (eg allowing mail-in votes without reason, sending out mail-in ballots to everyone etc).
What makes this case different from all other election cases
What is different about this case to all the others that have been filed by Trump supporters is that SCOTUS has to hear this case and make a ruling.
All the other cases are heading to SCOTUS by way of appeal from lower Courts.
There is no automatic right of appeal to SCOTUS - SCOTUS has to grant leave to appeal.
Only a small percentage of leave applications are granted.
Many of the other cases are also failing because of technical standing issues - basically, individuals don't necessarily have the right to sue over election law breaches.
But in this case it is the State of Texas bringing the claim against the Defendant States under a direct Constitutional right to be heard by SCOTUS.
Texas automatically has standing and SCOTUS must hear the case and rule.
Indeed the case goes to the heart of the Union itself - States in disagreement about the conduct of a Presidential election.
If you want to read more @brianoflondon has obtained the Court papers
https://data.brianoflondon.me/pdf/487348469-TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL.pdf
I've made him a beneficiary of this post for his efforts.
Please vote for my Hive witness. (KeyChain or HiveSigner)
If this is all the case, then it seems like it should not be a difficult case to argue.
However, the bigger question is that even if SCOTUS agrees with Texas, so what? What is the remedy? There is no way to order a new election, and according to the Constitution, a President needs to be in place by a certain date, while adhering to that.
Could SCOTUS reverse the decisions made by the different states? Again, even if they did that, how practical could that be? How do they know which ones were valid or not?
My point is the remedy is as big a mess as the present course of action.
See my post for answers to your questions. In short, the legislatures will have to follow the Constitution (you'll need to go on to the source article to start getting more specifics).
Good questions.
The remedy is that SCOTUS will invalidate the Defendant State's voting totals and will hand the issue back to the State Legislatures to decide - they are all GOP controlled.
And it looks like an easy win, as outlined by BREITBART.
https://hive.blog/hive-171488/@cryptographic/texas-takes-pa-mi-wi-and-ga-directly-to-scotus
It is never easy before SCOTUS, but I think the case has real prospects.
Didn't know about this and should be interesting to watch what happens next.