Federal securities fraud charges against Paxton were thrown out. He is still facing indictment by Collin County for state fraud charges, but the AG’s office doesn’t have anything to do with prosecuting the case. And, incredibly, he was indicted five and a half years ago, and the case has yet to see the inside of a courtroom. If for some reason you’re interested in the whole sad chronology, there’s an article here.
Given his semi-pariah status, I was hoping that other state Republicans might leave him out on his own on this one, but sadly our reed-in-the-wind Governor (himself a former AG) offered mealy-mouthed support for the case.
I Am Not A Lawyer. As I understand it, U.S. courts have ruled that accepting a pardon is effectively an admission of guilt, but only in a specific, narrow circumstance - application for having a criminal record expunged. I think the law around this is still murky, and I don’t think accepting a pardon has ever been used as evidence of guilt in a trial.
It would seem like a truly perverse outcome if accepting a federal pardon put you at jeopardy of being convicted on state charges, or vice versa. But, the law is an ass and all that…
The scary thing about this is that if the Supreme Court wanted to overturn the election, this lawsuit is all the justification they would need. If I’m reading this correctly, six people could hand the election to Trump tomorrow.
There is nothing particularly unique about this election compared to all of the other ones except that the losers have no shame in pursuing nonsensical legal claims. Any loser could have done the same in the past, and likely will in the future. Which means every election could eventually be decided by SCOTUS in a case along exactly these same lines. Just gin up some fraud claims, add some procedural claims and try to get SCOTUS to throw out just enough states EVs that you win.
Any democracy is only as secure as its institutions against un-democratic actors. If those institutions prove too weak then you fall into quasi-democratic authoritarianism (see Hungary, Turkey, Russia, etc).
Have skimmed over the motion, it notes that if the electoral votes for the four states are thrown out, Biden has 234 and Trump 232. It then postulates that if there is no majority of electoral votes, then it goes to the House of Representatives. I don’t think it works that way: there does not need to be a majority of electoral votes; a candidate just has to have more electoral votes than the other. 270 is not a magic number, it’s just the halfway mark. Biden still wins.
This is unclear. No court has ever ruled whether the Constitution or Federal law require a majority of votes cast or a majority of all votes available. The exact phrase is “majority of electors appointed”. It is not entirely clear whether electors will have been considered “appointed” in the case of SCOTUS providing some sort of relief to Texas. I think if SCOTUS enjoins those states from appointing their electors then they are clearly not “appointed”, so your reasoning would hold (majority of those appointed holds). But surely this would only spawn more lawsuits.
It is very difficult to come up with any sort of relief that is in the realm of sanity.
You’re right in that there needs to be a majority; I misspoke. What I meant was, Biden would still have a majority (by two electoral votes, but still a majority). It would not need to be “270”. If the four states are barred from casting their electoral votes, then they are not part of the count. Biden still wins.
Respectfully, I think this kind of relief directly violates another provision of Article II.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
IANAL (I just work for one) but SCOTUS may reject this on the same basis as several similar suits in the several states: the time to file such suits was before the election, not after.
That’s why I have no idea what sort of relief SCOTUS could even provide here. The Legislature of those states has directed that their votes go to the popular vote winner. How can SCOTUS direct them to do it some other way? Especially just because some other state claims that PA (for example) violated their own laws and state Constitution. How is that not an issue for the PA courts - which have already ruled on the matter?
Even if 5 or 6 justices really believe that these states violated the US Constitution in how they set up and ran their elections, what could they possibly do about it retroactively that isn’t significantly worse than the problem in the first place?
So my understanding is the lawsuit complains that states used COVID to change their voting laws. But you what other states also did? Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Missouri. I wonder why he’s not complaining about those votes…
I cannot emphasize enough what an idiot Ken Paxton is. He’s the Michael Scott of corrupt TX politicans. It’s utterly inexplicable that he’s still a power. IMO, he desperately wants to be a “big boy” but he never will be–this is his attempt to get attention from his idols. Look at me! I can help!
IMO nothing. Consider Bush v. Gore where the court agreed there was a problem but could not agree on a solution that was better than just letting the count stand.
Well, he’s charged in State court by the DA. The issue is that he’s delaying everything and the mostly Republican jurists in Collin County are enabling that, letting him draw out his court case for years and years. It’s crooked as hell, and I’m hoping for a reckoning eventually.
Will he? I say this is just another bullshit statement. Maybe he’ll do it in “two weeks.” Or he’ll try to get Barr to intervene and Barr will refuse (and get fired)
How long before the Supreme court smacks this down? I say two days. How long will the judgment be? I say two sentences. Will there be any dissent? I say no.
As I said in another thread yesterday, I’d laugh my ass off if several other states’ AGs sued Texas for that one pre-election drop box per county policy.
If the President plans on presenting arguments before the court himself, he had better get himself admitted to the bar of the highest court in a state/commonwealth/D.C. for at least three years, and he had better appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.
If you mean like, calling one of the Justices over for dinner and discussing the President’s position on a case, that’s not going to be found in any binding rule book. I believe there is precedent for such action, but it’s frowned upon as a matter of ethics.