So that didn’t age well

A legal expert explains why the Texas lawsuit is preposterous and it is unlikely the Supreme Court will take on the case:

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against four battleground states, alleging they made unconstitutional changes to their voting laws before the 2020 election.

Paxton claims that had Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin kept their voting laws the same – not expanding voting by mail, for example, because of the pandemic – President Donald Trump would have won reelection.

Steve Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, told Texas Standard that Paxton’s suit is “preposterous” and unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court – the only court that has jurisdiction in this case because it’s one state suing another.

“I think what this really is is an effort to try to force the Supreme Court’s hand. You know, we’ve heard about these cases going on in each of the states … and I think this is the attorney general trying to jump the queue and basically say, hey, Supreme Court, it’s now or never; you’ve got to resolve this election,” Vladeck said.

There’s a couple reasons the court likely won’t take on Paxton’s case. One is that it’s never been done before – the Supreme Court has never taken on a case between states that seeks to alter the outcome of an election. Also, similar lawsuits are already working their way through state courts, and that’s where the Supreme Court usually prefers such cases be resolved, Vladeck says. Even though the high court has so-called original jurisdiction in this case, it usually stays out of cases that haven’t worked their way through lower courts first.

“The court doesn’t like its original jurisdiction because it asks the court to function as a trial court; it’s used to functioning as an appellate court,” Vladeck said. “And so the court’s M.O., even in high-profile cases, even in politically sensitive cases, is if the issues are being addressed through cases in other courts involving other parties, the court will stay out of the original cases like this.”

And this is prima facie evidence why you should never take seriously anything a so-called legal expert says that is reported by the media, given that only a few hours later, the Supreme Court accepted the case and ordered the defendants to reply.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday evening, December 8 ordered Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to reply to a lawsuit filed this week by Attorney General of Texas Ken Paxton.

Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Missouri have all joined Texas as co-plaintiffs. But don’t worry, fraudsters! Another legal expert claims that there is no possible way that the States have standing.

Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, told Reuters that there is “no possible way the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes.”

Remember, these people don’t speak the truth. They’re just sorcerers casting spells, hoping to invoke their desired reality by speaking it into being.