A federal complaint filed by the Trump campaign alleging constitutional violations in Pennsylvania is credited as a “superb piece of legal craftsmanship” which could bring the case before the US Supreme Court, according to legal scholar James V. Delong.
The gist is that some of the state’s actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements.
The federal filing alleging constitutional violations means a conservative-majority SCOTUS could be forced to rule on the matter, quite possibly in Trump’s favor, rather than “a politicized Pennsylvania court” having the last say.
A SCOTUS review would likely bring to light the various constitutional violations of excluding poll watchers and having votes counted in secret, corroborating the Trump team’s wider point of massive voter fraud.
As my old Harvard constitutional law professors would have said, “to ask the question is to answer it.” It is hard to count all the constitutional guarantees violated here: Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities. Indeed, the complaint stacks up the Supreme Court precedents supporting its arguments, including the long line of ringing statements in the chain of one-person-one-vote decisions.
“Even the late Justice Ginsburg, who never met a progressive argument she could not support, would have trouble upholding such a law,” writes DeLong, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Differing from the Bush V. Gore decision of 2000, where SCOTUS treaded lightly so as not to undermine the Florida Supreme Court, “Trump’s Pennsylvania case does not have the complication of the state versus federal law interaction because it jumps over the state law and, as noted, relies on a host of U.S. SCOTUS cases about the importance of voting.”
DeLong estimates similar complaints could soon be filed by the Trump team in other swing states where “perhaps we are seeing the exposure of a broad-based effort to corrupt the election,” evidence of which was provided by Joe Biden himself.
Joe Biden claimed that the Democrats were mounting the biggest voter fraud effort in history, and a good rule for living is that when someone tells you he is about to screw you over, believe him.
It is possible, then, that a number of cases will hit the Supreme Court in about three weeks.
DeLong says, despite flak taken over the 2000 decision handing George W. Bush the win, SCOTUS would be forced to rule on the constitutional violations and could once again ultimately decide the result of an election, reversing the media’s selection of Joe Biden as president.
Everyone in the legal world assumes that the justices, bruised by the excoriation the Court has received over Bush v. Gore (even though the result was right), would never put itself in the position of reversing the apparent results of a presidential election. This assumption is the reason for the Democrats’ efforts to create an irresistible bandwagon effect, but the president’s lawyers may have out-maneuvered them. The justices may have no choice except to decide the election, one way or the other, and to be put to the choice of reversing the media-claimed results or ratifying massive fraud.
SCOTUS’ reputation, DeLong says, largely hinges on the nine justices correctly interpreting the Constitution.
The legitimacy of the Court could survive through, and even be enhanced by, a carefully explained reversal of initial results. It could not survive a mealy-mouthed ratification of obvious fraud. If Trump’s lawyers make their case factually, the Court must agree.
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar
On Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWins
On Parler: https://parler.com/profile/adansalazar/
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars