In a disappointing majority decision announced shortly before 6:30pm Friday evening, a majority of Supreme Court justices refused to take up a Texas lawsuit challenging four states in the 2020 election.

The court, with two dissenting options by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, stated that Texas lacked a legal right to sue and did not have a legal interest in how other states carried out their elections.

The court rejected the Texas’ lawsuit without considering the specific merits of the state’s case.

Texas had asked the court to delay the official vote of the Electoral College, scheduled for Monday, Dec. 14, or prevent the four states from casting votes in the Electoral College for Biden. Justice Alito filed a short statement regarding the court’s disposition of the case and was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The position of the Supreme Court raises an important question that now sits unresolved. If an individual citizen is determined not to have standing to challenge an election result; and if a group of citizens represented by their interest in a state, any state, is also denied standing to challenge an election result; then who can constitutionally challenge an election, any election, that is mired in controversy and demonstrable evidence of fraud?

From the Alliance:

(more…)

The Right Side Broadcast Network (RSBN) is broadcasting live from the National Mall in Washington DC during The Jericho March “Let the Church ROAR!” Prayer Rally with national faith leaders, political leaders, and praise and worship musicians.

The Prayer Rally will feature speeches from Lt. General Mike Flynn and his family and the event will be emceed by Eric Metaxas.  WATCH LIVE

(more…)

Late Monday night the state of Texas filed a lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court against four states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvan and Wisconsin. The intent is to block those states from casting their Electoral College votes for Joe Biden due to the unconstitutional nature of mail-in ballot use – against legislative approval and requirement.

Today 17 states filed an amicus brief [pdf link] in support of the Texas lawsuit.

The seventeen states include Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

As noted in the supportive filing: “The States have a strong interest in preserving the proper roles of state legislatures in the administration of federal elections, and thus safeguarding the individual liberty of their citizens.”

[…] “States have a strong interest in ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not diluted by the unconstitutional administration of elections in other States. When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the “Legislature thereof” in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election — including the citizens of amici States.

(more…)

Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court directly asked the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia to respond to the Texas constitutional lawsuit on unconstitutional ballot changes, Jordan Sekulow sat down with Newsmax to discuss:

(more…)

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appears on Sean Hannity to discuss the legal position of his state in an election lawsuit about arbitrary state processes used in the 2020 election.

Paxton, on behalf of Texas, has sued battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to challenge the unconstitutional creation of their mail-in ballots within the election.  Several states have now joined Texas in alignment with the lawsuit.

(more…)

There are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by another state is one of those instances.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit [pdf here] with the supreme court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”

The Texas AG argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”

The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”

(more…)

Yesterday, in a final foot-stomping and teeth-gnashing exhibition of judicial activism, federal judge Emmet Sullivan allowed a host of political amicus briefs to be provided to the case file against Lt. General Michael Flynn.

The obvious judicial intent was to legally smear General Flynn with as many corrupt and manipulative Lawfare opinions as possible. In essence Sullivan was just pouring on the dirt after President Trump stepped in and said “enough” granting Flynn a deserved, full and unconditional pardon.

I didn’t write about Sullivan’s scheme and vile nature last night because: (a) I was very angry, and (b) I suspected Sullivan’s only intent was to besmirch the good name and reputation of Flynn in the judicial record.  Ultimately Sullivan’s childish Lawfare antics held no legal or judicial merit because Flynn has been pardoned. It was all moot.

Today, after stomping his feet and throwing a verbal tantrum, as expected Judge Sullivan announces the motion to dismiss the case is granted.

I’ve got two words for you Judge Sullivan, and they ain’t Merry Christmas!

(more…)

Attorney Sidney Powell appears on Newsmax television for an interview with Greg Kelly about the current status of lawsuits after a Georgia judge threw out the case. Ms. Powell is optimistic the U.S. Supreme Court will grat a writ to hear the evidence in the case and weigh in.

(more…)

The Washington Times is reporting the Arizona Supreme Court has accepted an election challenge lawsuit filed by Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward concerning mail-in ballots in Maricopa County.

[…] “A lower court judge dismissed her case Friday, but she took the challenge to the state’s highest court and has said a small sample of ballots and envelopes she was able to inspect showed some irregularities.” (more)

On its face the decision seems to be a positive step; however, the court is ultra-fast-tracking the case. Filings due by noon today, no oral arguments and the seven member panel likely with a ruling later today or tomorrow.

The speed is likely part of a Arizona Supreme Court procedural intent to avoid SCOTUS intervention ahead of the Tuesday Safe Harbor deadline.  As noted by AZ Law: “Congress cannot challenge any state’s electors if the results are certified and lawsuits resolved by the end of the day tomorrow” (more)..

It was widely reported by media and independent observers that Fulton County, Georgia, election officials asked everyone to exit the State Farm Arena on election night at approximately 10:00pm; however, a selected group of election workers remained and conducted sketchy ballot tabulation after observers left.  A complaint was filed with the Georgia Secretary of State.

In a short, albeit obtuse, affidavit filed today in advance of election litigation, Chief Investigator Frances Watson simultaneously highlights the evidence seems to support the claims of fraud and manipulation, but also says it doesn’t.  [pdf link]

The widely reported “water main” break excuse was actually nothing to do with the widely reported late-evening request to exit the arena.  In essence this part of the affidavit validates the water main lie was false.  It was a lie told to media by someone for some unknown purpose.  But this affidavit gets even more sketchy…

(more…)