In the legal world it\u2019s called \u201cvenue shopping\u201d. If someone\u2019s going to sue, they look for a Court that would be most likely to favor \u2013 them. In a local dispute, it might be to manipulate the Court schedule so that a \u201cfavorable\u201d judge decides the case. Or, if the question could be settled in State or Federal Courts, the Court with the set of laws that most favors their case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s kind of like Major League Baseball. In the National League, pitchers take their turn at bat every inning. If the manager wants a better hitter in the pitcher\u2019s slot, then he\u2019s got to change pitchers. In the American League, there\u2019s a designated hitter that bats for the pitcher, no change required. If you\u2019ve got pitchers who can hit, National League rules are better. If not, the American League rules are better. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Donald Trump and his supporters have gone to Court over fifty times since the November 3rd<\/sup> election,. They tried in one way or another to change the results of the vote count. Trump has lost over thirty times, with several cases still in legal \u201climbo\u201d. They won one case, in Pennsylvania. It required that Trump observers be allowed as close as six feet from the vote counters instead of ten.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what the President and some of his followers believe, is that if they can get their case to the United States Supreme Court, they can win. It\u2019s the venue where they actually have had the most success. He won on the Muslim ban (eventually), on the border wall, and on several other issues where \u201clower\u201d courts ruled against him. And, as far as \u201cjudges\u201d are concerned, Donald Trump believes as least three of those Justices \u201cowe\u201d him. He appointed them, and in the \u201cquid pro quo\u201d world of Trump, that means they should rule for him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US Supreme Court let the President down yesterday, refusing to take an appeal on the Pennsylvania case to invalidate the voting results. The Court had no comment, just a 9-0 refusal to hear the case. But that case was on appeal from a lower court, with all of the evidentiary decisions already made. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Trump and his supporters, including several members of Congress, claim that if they could only get their \u201cevidence\u201d in front of the Supreme Court, then the Court would be \u201crequired\u201d to overturn the election results that went for Biden. They want the Supreme Court to order those states to ignore the \u201ctainted\u201d results, and appoint Trump Electors to the Electoral College. And Trump has his \u201cquid pro quo\u201d with Justices Bennett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. It would only take two more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A little reminder from high school American Government class here. There are two ways that a Court hears cases. The first is \u201coriginal jurisdiction” That’s when a Court hears the case for the first time and determines both the facts (evidence) of the case, and how the law applies to that case. After the original court, the facts are \u201csettled\u201d either by a jury or the judge. If a case is appealed to a \u201chigher\u201d court, it is appealed based on whether the law was applied correctly or not. Those higher courts have \u201cappellate\u201d jurisdiction, determining the law, not the facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court almost always has \u201cappellate\u201d jurisdiction. But there are Constitutional exceptions where the Court could step in and take \u201coriginal\u201d jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n So if only a State would sue, and particularly if a State would sue another State. Then that case might have a clear path to \u201coriginal jurisdiction\u201d in front of the US Supreme Court. They could present the \u201cmountains\u201d of evidence that all of the other Courts, both Federal and State, have rejected out of hand. The President could \u201cmake his case\u201d to the \u201cfriendliest\u201d Court he knows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Enter Ken Paxton, the Attorney General for the State of Texas. In a 128 page brief to the Supreme Court in the name of the state of Texas, General Paxton claims that the voting process in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin violates the due process rights of the citizens of Texas. How did they do that? Paxton claims those states counted votes in ways that, even though their own state courts approved, violate their own state laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s right \u2013 the State of Texas has determined that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin don\u2019t know how to judge their own laws. And since they don\u2019t, they\u2019ve allowed an election where the \u201cwrong\u201d candidate won, not the candidate that Texas chose. But General Paxton knows how their laws should be judged, and he wants the Supreme Court to take the case directly on original jurisdiction, to present the evidence and prove it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And what remedy does the great state of Texas suggest? From the Texas suit:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States\u2019 legislatures and remand to the Defendant States\u2019 respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Or, in plain English, throw out the results of the vote count, and require the state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to choose electors for the Electoral College. It shouldn\u2019t be a surprise that all four of those states have Republican controlled legislatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is an act of desperation.\u00a0\u00a0Can\u2019t we imagine the proud Texas response if those other states demanded that the Lone Star state to throw out their election results?\u00a0\u00a0Almost every \u201cSupreme Court Expert\u201d agrees that this lawsuit is \u201cdead on arrival\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0But it\u2019s the era of Trump:\u00a0\u00a0we\u2019ve learned to our dismay that the word \u201cimpossible\u201d doesn\u2019t apply.\u00a0\u00a0Don\u2019t expect the Supreme Court to hear this case \u2013 but don\u2019t be overly \u201cshocked\u201d if they decide to give Texas a \u201cfair hearing\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0After all, there are twenty-two days left in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\nEvidence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Jurisdiction 101<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Lone Ranger<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Experts Agree<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Update 12\/11\/2020<\/h3>\n\n\n\n