Legal Memo Outlines Strategy for Trump to Succeed Having Supreme Court Hear Election Dispute – IOTW Report

Legal Memo Outlines Strategy for Trump to Succeed Having Supreme Court Hear Election Dispute

PJMedia: The Western Journal has published a legal memo written by William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney that, they say, “outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks.” The legal memo was reportedly sent to President Trump prior to it being published on The Western Journal.

The authors of the memo contend that by refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court” abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court,” resulting in intense criticism that they had evaded “the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”

“However,” the authors say, “even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff.” read more

13 Comments on Legal Memo Outlines Strategy for Trump to Succeed Having Supreme Court Hear Election Dispute

  1. It is pretty clear law and contracts mean nothing anymore unless the entity agrees to honor it and scotus along with almost all courts have sent the message this issue isn’t going to be heard prior to Jan 20th if ever.

    5
  2. My worthless reps in the senate refuse to answer my emails and their mailboxes are full. How fucking sweet. If a half dozen of these scummy worthless POSs would commit to joining with House members to oppose the elector count coming up, the game would look much different.

    But no, not Tom Cotton or John Boozman. Fucking scum. Unreal. 99.9% of us have no representation in Congress. What a GD joke.

    When this pot boils over, it’s going to be a wicked fucking mess. And it’s going to.

    7
  3. Someone explain to me how the United States of America can be a plaintiff? Who makes that call? No matter how much I agree. Does it take the 46 states collectively to claim to be the United States of America?

  4. Stirrin’ – I believe that The United States refers to the highest officer of the federation, that is, the President as Head of State.

    That being said, I don’t see that this necessarily compels the Court to hear the case, or if it does, to rule in a timely manner.

    My impression is that virtually all the key decision makers in government have decided that Trump will not be President after Jan 20, lawsuits and evidence notwithstanding.

    1
  5. The Supreme Court has clearly stained the spirit of America. Their shameful failure falls squarely on their combined effort to make voting in America a waste of time from this day forward.

    3
  6. ALL “legal issues” pertaining to this election being dealt with are predicated on the assumption that the legal system is fair and honest. NEWSFLASH! It is NOT fair or honest. It has been infiltrated, corrupted and suborned by the communist left. Virtually ALL judges in America have been replaced by leftist sycophants who will ignore laws, justice and the Constitution in deference to their masters agenda. We are NOT “voting our way” off the road to communism and we are not “suing our way” off of it either. To end this forced frog march into slavery is going to require “we the people” to SACK UP, step off the porch and start killing commie leftists…..in LARGE QUANTITIES.

Comments are closed.