A rash of additional briefs have been submitted in Texas v. Pennsylvania, the audacious effort by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to prevent Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin from selecting presidential electors based upon the results of the November election. All of the briefs are available on the Supreme Court’s website here.
In two prior posts (here and here) I discussed some of the briefs filed in support and in opposition to the Texas filing. Although quite a few interesting and noteworthy filings were submitted this afternoon (and not always noteworthy in a good way), in this brief post I want to highlight a few portions from the briefs of the defendant states.
The briefs from teh four defendant states raise a wide range of objections to the Texas filing. These include jurisdictional arguments, such as that Texas lacks standing and that the case raises a nonjusticiable political question, prudential arguments such as laches, and substantive arguments rejecting Texas’s claims that any constitutional violation occurred. The briefs also point out how many of the claims Texas makes about specific events in each of their states have been rejected by state and federal courts, and are often based upon faulty factual claims.
On the question of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Pennsylvania filing makes a powerful argument that Texas lacks Article III standing to bring its claims.
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
https://ift.tt/373BiZg
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2W5cPMS
via IFTTT