Pennsylvania's response to the Texas suit in SCOTUS

Dec 11, 2020, 2:23 PM

This type of language is rarely seen in Supreme Court filings:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts
throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate
elections in four states for yielding results with which
it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its
original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred
candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an
afront to principles of constitutional democracy.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this
Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about
problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It
attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original
jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any
event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless,
and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing
in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution
supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that
view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas
does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
The cascading series of compounding defects in
Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct.
That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical
2
analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this
Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or
fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of
the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Yeah, me too. It is as strong as death for one state to accuse another state of Sedition. Nothing like this has happened since the Civil War. In fact, if the Court were to grant this suit it would literally do away with Democracy in favor of Despotic rule.

"In one of the first tests of freedom of speech, the House passed the Sedition Act, permitting the deportation, fine, or imprisonment of anyone deemed a threat or publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government of the United States. ..."

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Sedition-Act-of-1798/#:~:text=In%20one%20of%20the%20first,government%20of%20the%20United%20States

The Sedition Act of 1798 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

In one of the first tests of freedom of speech, the House passed the Sedition Act, permitting the deportation, fine, or imprisonment of anyone deemed a threat or publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government of the United States.

Pennsylvania's response to the Texas suit in SCOTUS

Where do I go to sign an amicus brief on that?***

Re: Where do I go to sign an amicus brief on that?***

TigerBoard POTD