ANY MOMENT: SCOTUS Action on Texas Case

The Supreme Court to take action on the Texas case determine the outcome of the Presidential election talk about that today Jay Sekulow lot live from Washington DC. Phone lines are questions right now called one 806 843-110-1800 68412, your host will Texas is applied brief.

I just update you again folks of the amount of briefs that you have six states that have filed motions to intervene on behalf of Texas that's Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Korea, South Korea, Utah one intervene as parties. Those six states plus an additional 11 have filed along amicus briefs with Texas so I mean you got 17 there.

There are two states of Ohio in Arizona and said, this case needs to be heard by the Supreme Court. They did an issue they have written brief chat on the merits than they won't if the court orders more briefing and then you've got 106 members of Congress at this point Republican members of Congress in favor of filing a brief in favor of Texas. On the other side you have of course the four states, Pennsylvania, a Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, but you also have a 20 states to territories and DC filing alongside those four states in opposition so this is very much a serious case. The US Supreme Court. When you got almost the majority of states of the country way again and we were just like six states short of every state in the country way and we've got US territories weighing in the case. So I me. I explained this way from the Supreme Court action can come very early today and it could come through in order and a specific statement they could call for more briefing if you call for oral argument, but I want you know, they've now got the documentation place where they could they could make the decision now at any moment. They don't have to call for oral argument. They don't have to call for additional briefing or or allow for additional amicus briefs this decision by the court. I want to remind everybody listening right now this is the court of last resort. Andy is the final place you can go to make your case.

This is the single most important case because it's outcome determinative of the Supreme Court you go in thinking okay I'm here because this is the last place I've got to go. And though these states had original jurisdiction.

It came about because all of the other court cases really led to this moment, whether not state courts were dismissing things federal courts dismissing things so Texas brings this challenge now supported by you know, 16 states and six that one intervene. I mean so at again. I think an intruder saying here this case Supreme Court that are waiting to nosed, but the court could decide this with the briefing they've got. Now you right now. That's right, the court is in a position if you want to do right now it has before and all the documents from all the parties were going to make an appearance before the court and could decide of the, the merits of the case or could decline jurisdiction and say the dry we exercise our discretion not to hear the case were deciding not to do this and send it away and let the politics take its course. Or he could decide the case.

He could assume jurisdiction which it has the right to do.

It's an original jurisdiction invoked matter and that means they could decide that the Supreme Court could decide the case of furthermore the matter is ripe.

What that means is that everybody who wants to be heard now has the opportunity to have been heard the final word was put in by Texas just a while ago when they filed a reply brief to the brief that had been filed by all these other defendant states are replying to what Texas had said so now with the reply brief, the court could rule or ask for more were asking for oral argument. Whatever type of the Supreme Court lot of different ways you can actually kick in and there's a lot of ways actually play out many different rules limit coming up but is very quick. It has to end, the court knows it has to so we can stay with us share this if you're on Facebook on YouTube periscope carelessly or on radio. This is very important. Broadcast will be right back to the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous support to coordinate our matching challenge today make a difference in what we do. Protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you beautiful gift today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition life will show you how you are personally support, and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life discover many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow like this Jordan secular, so this is a critical phase Texas is file a reply brief to the briefs that were filed by the states that Texas brought this lawsuit against the of original jurisdiction in the bill of complaint.

So we get Pennsylvania responding Georgia a Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas has responded as well, which means the courts could dad order issued order without anything else that means issues joint. So when we say issues joined in a case, it means they briefs for both sides of the parties are in, and that includes amicus briefs including a brief end with 109 members of the United States Congress and also there were some lawyers filed some briefs the President intervened, made a motion to intervene with the brief in support of reply brief was filed last early this morning by Texas of the next move really is. The course is the course as you said all the intervenors were going to sleep intervene if done so the principal states to file their briefs the respondent states the defendants have filed their briefs. There have been amici friends of the court who have come in and filed their briefs in the case. Texas has now filed a reply brief, reasserting its position that on remand to the legislature of the defendant states is the only viable option whether the legislature sets a new election or provides some other mechanism to allocate the defendant states electoral votes is up to the legislature that has been the core of Texas is argument. Texas has not gone into anything other than saying what the Constitution provides needed to be followed by the other states and was not there for the electors that were chosen by these other states diluted the votes of the electors in Texas and therefore the election of those defendant states selectors should be rescinded and they not be allowed to vote in the electoral college and this not go back, not the courts, but to the legislature.

I think it's important to distressed or not we go to Harry on this.

What this case is not about this case doesn't select the present United States and we would then gotta be clear that we were yesterday, but you need understand it does not select the President of United States what the case does it says if the court would rule in favor of Texas. It would simply cite the case goes back to the elect legislature to pick the 76 electors that are at play here.

That's what the case does. It doesn't say Donald Trump is the winter. Our or Joe Biden is a winner or doldrums losing Joe Biden is aware it doesn't planning that so this is outcome determinative. In other words, it will could affect the outcome of the case, but really it's it's really in it. If anything, it sends a bit of a paper goes in Texas favor, which is an uphill climb goes back to the legislature. Absolutely through the court deficiency attacked by Texas against the defendant states is that non-legislative act errors affectively amended state law state election law what does that mean it means that there were votes cast and counted, which were not appropriate and that in essence they were illegal votes and so at the ACLJ we have consistently maintained that every legal vote should count and I think it is clear beyond question.

If you look at state after state if you look at George. If you look at Pennsylvania you look at Michigan and Wisconsin.

Non-legislative actors intervene without the permission or the ratification of the state legislative branch. This this is a legal challenge that the states did not comply with state law as mandated by their own legislature and their state constitutions.

That's what's at stake here now.

We got a question came in from YouTube on by Brett can Justice Roberts dismiss this case on his own think the answer to that is no. I think this is an original jurisdiction matter and I think you meant, I think is mandatory that that's not the majority opinion of the court. Right now the majority opinion is that it's not mandatory, it still discretionary. Justice Alito just some say it is mandatory, but I don't think you would take case of this man's nonthinking system of dismissal is a that if we get there were those short orders and it's not positive for for the present side delay that you don't get names necessarily right yet they could just say like the within Pennsylvania doubt that the motion for injunctive relief and bill of complaint was distributed to the court and the court denies the application yet to be at your end and then if their dissenters are nearby when they would write exactly right under their name it, but that but that again.

I think just to explain to people to be that simple.

For this report, you might not get reasoning at all from the Supreme Court about their decision about their decision as though they have certainly received a Lotta briefing in these last 48 hours including now the Texas brief which you see that's closing down all today.

They better not brief in Texas. This rule says they can decide without reply brief so that it is for that and it's a short break. Now they then asked what you're allowed to do it, but does if it doesn't come in they could still do work when it glistens coming at 3 o'clock yesterday there was a reason for that. That was they will start working on it yesterday afternoon. Yeah, that's why they said three then wondered if I did I don't want people to read into that Texas reply brief in think the court ordered reply briefs they did not. Texas did that on their own, which is okay to do because they want to reply to the allegations in the lawsuit in the in the responses from the states they sued, it wasn't like the court has he gotten separately ordered additional briefing they could do that today that would be a one line to write a be a one line on things that we want to disobey the on this issue can be little expense yet and what about opening up to more mucus that we could do that to a blog and they have a lot of meet with the peers I said it's like allowing everything to be filed. I think right now they haven't granted the amicus right participation yet. I don't think they will deny it, I think, which initially I do think the be some type of opinion here. I don't know that for a fact that think it's can be very soon. I say very soon, it could be longer on the air could be tomorrow or Sunday but but but they do electors sit electoral college money is on Monday.

What does her time knew I knew nothing.

I don't see how it goes past not mean even though the court said just delete Justice Ginsburg and when they're considering things they really look at January 6, which would Congress certifies as electoral votes, but to doubt, to make matters less confusing.

I think of the court can do whatever the out either side.

If they can, they would try to do before Monday but I don't think they would say they have to if they thought they needed to hear oral arguments in this case or if they had needed additional briefing on the specific question came up in the case, but I do want to remind everybody than that because I think it's so important people. Is this we got this all the way to the ties court in the land. The briefings are there. The states basically evenly divided in the country's on what side thereon when it comes to this matter at this is the case that we talked at the can become outcome determinative. When we say that though can be outcome determinative for President drop. It can also become outcome determinative for VP Joe Biden because there yes or some other legal cases out there, and not all of big dismiss.

Not all of bid. Not all are over, but this was the big one that got this is the big when they got to the court. It could be outcome determinative based off its decision yet. I always remind people this is the court the ultimate court of last resort is the Supreme Court and most of the time they don't even take up the cases in this original jurisdiction situation. It's a little bit different. She got more briefing audit that usually would, and more interest obviously is it state versus state, but it is that as you said, it is an uphill battle to convince the court in writing to invalidate, which is what they would have to do the election results for Presidential election in four states that that's a big ask so you know, while I am going to fight till you know you said something the other day you don't leave the field while the clock is still running down the clock throughout the clock is still running. So what we did is we best discussed here. We've given you an analysis of all the briefs that involve all the legal action that has been taken and now what were saying is that it really is up to the court and if there's a lot of different ways. If you got me they could do this I can say this a political question. I will address it legislature skin now. Then the question would be any legislature can do anything different in a you know the that process in 48 hours on their slate of electors yeah well I think that if the if they are told by the Supreme Court that they are there election was a legal this picked up by some reporters yesterday. These state legislature light legislators who may previously made statements in the past that were abide by the results will if the Supreme Court comes and said, your results were illegal. You conducted the election unconstitutionally violated rules that changes how they they view it now. There is this there is a stopgap thereto protection that if there was state legislatures cannot figure this out. It would go to Congress that favors Pres. Trump also because the house at state delegations is not by who controls the house and by who controls most state delegations.

Republicans control majority 27 to 22, two states tied sobbing. This is why it's so important for all of you to understand just that.

How this could turn out. It would not be the Supreme Court they wouldn't that Texas favored giving it to Donald Trump or take you away from Joe Biden would be first giving it to the states to figure out if they can't do it constitutional Constitution provides for Congress to do that so that is where we are, we will. We are to continue taking questions take a lot of those we come back for this break were to matching child's right out the ACLJ were fighting hard, double the impact your donation and subscribe your YouTube or Facebook subscribe and hit the bell button you can keep updated with us, especially on YouTube that bell button is important only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition life will show you how you are personally pro-life publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to the pro-life side of the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is powering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do.

Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ Jay Sekulow live without Newsmax this morning explaining this briefly for their audience. All our broadcasts were able to get into more details for you but I encourage you if you're watching on Facebook or on YouTube share this if you know you to be valid. It opened up really last month and that the viewership very high. There subscribe to the official ACLJ YouTube page and when you do that right next to subscribe. It's there's that there's a cowbell. If you click that bell would you subscribe, you get notifications like with this radio broadcast goes live and if we come back like later today if the Supreme Court were issue, something let's say an hour after were off the air. We still come back into the studio and you would get the notification Facebook as well. You can set up for those notifications as well be no you do that or Facebook audience as well.

Periscope bodies on twitter with would see it on twitter that we were back on and on parlor in places like that but because the YouTube this is new for a further broadcast encourages subscribe and click the bell.

I rebel so important because you will then know when we've got something new up and especially if were coming back to you live with something this important. I want to go to the phones one 800 684 31 two that's 100-6431 10 let's go to Janice Washington state online forces to question Janice you're on the air call surely appreciate everything you're doing on. There are currently out of our 50 their electoral votes rather than winner take all the pain court decide to have need for state mitigation activities for state legislature Blanchette connected to think about electoral vote. Can anyone of these four state their electoral votes. For example, credits taken 50% of their electoral vote to tromp and play protected by the Janice a great question really great question and make a great loss in question. Actually Prof. Hutchison.

I will save you is that one day, but it's a great question, but now the especially these four states it's winner take all. So these unallocated states so they can't change the legislation by this all the court could do if they ruled in favor of Texas would say go back to the state legislature and make a decision that the legislature makes to appoint the slate of electors. That's it. That's as far as I could go damn inside again. I did nothing else I can bet that's it. MHC understand it's very in one sense, is a very narrow case. That's why this is not its outcome determinative because the number of electors at stake, or outcome determine, but it's not a state. Donald Trump, the winner or you know or Joe binds the winner by the Bush versus Gore didn't do that either. But it was outcome determinative. So that's important. I we got a couple super Jesse came in on YouTube. You let me take a couple's canoe points where we can follow along with the situation of the Supreme Court. That's a great question looking go to the Supreme Court website. There's it.

Enter docket entry and its case 20 20155, but they just post motions and you could been like if something happens, we will let you know which is another reason that there are social media platforms. Even if you're listening by radio right now. You should go onto your computer and log onto the Facebook YouTube rumble Instagram.

Whatever it is and subscribe and there's a lot you want right now. Suggest subscribe and we will come to you if there is a net an announcement about the case, but you can follow with the cabal of the docket, but that's not always so easy on another side.

Super chat was at the tent. The member is not an issue. The following is a possible porcupine and part of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin intent to mimic state rights, ground note, not raised, and I will also say, could this report ruled that since legislatures didn't overrule governors and Secretary of State's mail-in ballot changes that this decision goes directly to Congress. Okay, let's explain how it actually ends up it would end up in Congress because there is a provision in the Constitution that said set up Yahoo whether that would work is if this case would be remanded to the legislatures for their Presidential electors to be different. This person picked pursuant to the Constitution, the electors clause and three USC section 2. That is, if it went back to the legislatures and the legislatures could not reach and number and neither candidate or any candidate could not reach a 270 electoral votes as would you have to have. If that doesn't happen, then the Constitution amendment 12 provides that the election of the President takes place in the House of Representatives now in the House of Representatives each state gets one vote. It's not 435 votes. All the representatives don't vote. So wait, what would happen is you vote by delegation. The Republicans currently have the majority in 27 delegations of the dread Democrats in 22 delegations.

Those delegations meet and they decide how to cast the vote of the state in question. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, New York, Michigan whatever it is and then whoever gets the majority of the votes is elected the President. The Senate elects the vice President, the Senate elects the vice President.

That's the procedure that's followed in with James writing it about that you have these electors if they are if Scotus rules in Texas favorite election. Electors are still chosen based on the results of the election. What is Texas gain should electors be chosen independently from election results, and this this again. It's it, the Supreme Court will leave it up to the states Harry to decide the electors what I've said is that even those state legislatures are all Republican that were not going to do this on their own, even though they could because they could. They had the power to declare that the elections were held illegally in their states in the seat their own electoral electoral's electors.

They could go back say there were still in abide by the election, even though Supreme Court said it was an illegal action precisely so.

One of the issues raised even by the state of Texas was whether or not the state legislative bodies ratified the nonlegislative decisions taken by let's say the secretary of the state of Michigan are Pennsylvania, they could in fact do that of the. The state legislative bodies could, for instance rather fall the certification. The current certification, including illegal votes, arguably within their state. So it's up to the state legislative body. They have discretion they could select an entirely new slate of electors they could decide not to send a delegation to Congress and that then returns us to the scenario that Andy so excellently explained.

So all that set forth in the Constitution for reason. The founders had a vision of what could happen then were some amendments to bring up other scenarios, so the court this records dealing with the template. The templates call the U.S. Constitution. There are arguments on both sides. Those arguments have been made is not an oral argument to put in a court order that for tomorrow not bound by them Monday through Wednesday or Monday through Friday schedule or they could just decide the case. So maybe prepared no said this is a real uphill battle, but I think this is the last real case that's my view, this is the last real case they would encourage and support the work of the ACL. James will tell you how you ACLJ.org we have a matching challenge right now. That means that we have a group of donors there said whatever donations come with the month of December to the American surfline justice will match all of those donations to double the impact of your donation@aclj.org that's ACLJ.org it supports all the legal work we do. The government affairs work we do our international work and the reason why we broadcast television broadcast donate online W impacted ACLJ.org the American Central and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be match $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the world do protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and now Jordan's secular super check coveted from Charlie from YouTube. So what happens on December 14 this Monday, the electoral college means there is it a Supreme Court. I think it's highly unlikely. There's not a Supreme Court decision in less highly unlikely they go to oral arguments and that would kind of put that on pause. I mean really that's not determining that statute. That's not the Constitution. Let me take what I I think I let let's explain first appear on any of our social media platforms is be a great time to share this fee because I think we need to explain the outcome.

What could happen. What cannot happen okay I think that's where that point in this case because everything is been submitted. So if you're on Facebook, YouTube, rumble periscope, where we are share with your friends right now course, subscribe to the on those as well. Here's what I think. I think it's likely the sprinkler decision does come out before Monday. In fact I think is likely that the spring court decision comes out this week and maybe come out today, there are really two ways three ways this can go and I want to get everybody's, what student one at a time. Get the comments that moved each one. First, there's the personal jurisdiction.

What is that mean this was filed as an original jurisdiction case. That means it did not originate in the District Court did not originate in the Court of Appeals. It originated at the Supreme Court to Justices Alito and Thomas view that is mandatory. In other words, when you file a case that is captioned 20 20155 folding for original jurisdiction, the court must hear but those are the only two that said that publicly in a dissent that they had a case involving Calc California and Arizona.

The first issue is getting the case docket was successfully docketed. The second issue in the case is will the court accept jurisdiction.

So let's talk about that for a moment, because that kind of resets where this is the first order of business that the court is dealing with is will we accept jurisdiction of this complaint. Go to any person had got some for Harry Wright the answer is it depends because the court has the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court at this moment is that original jurisdiction is discretionary, that is to say, the court can accept to hear this case or can decide not to hear this case only to Justices have gone on the right record publicly.

Justices Thomas and Alito as to say that whenever an original action is filed and that means state versus state. As we have here. We've got to hear that because those states have no other recourse again go anywhere else.

Now those are two justices that say is mandatory.

The rest of not applying or obviously vindicated by not joining that dissent that they take a different view, but the jurisdiction hurdle Harry is horrible. Number one will the court hear the case if they do, they do say yes William the case, that doesn't mean you're one that just means the case is now before the precisely and so what we have learned in law school, particularly for students that are going to engage in the litigation is that you have to successfully assert jurisdiction as a predicate for the court actually hearing the merits of the claim. So jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, the court could argue or conclude that there is no jurisdiction here, and as Andy has pointed out within the this arena, state to state litigation. The typical view of the Supreme Court is jurisdiction is discretionary.

If a sage there's no jurisdiction that is the end of the matter that mean so gone through 22 credit thresholds versus the case getting docketed.

Check that it got docket then it was briefing the briefing was on filing a complaint was a motion to file the complaint. That is what is pending before the court, but I think we should do.

Let's say live during this break as I will explain something to her YouTube and social media audiences what we come back working it takes and called will also explain what now happens if they do take jurisdiction right every that's it. That's something that tag in the media is not spent a lot of time on what happens with or takes jurisdiction that several arguments this of the briefing. How much of a delay that was made by days opinion or would there be any delay will take your phone calls 164 30 whatever is stabilized during the break for our Facebook and YouTube audience you can support the work ACLJ do so financially. ACLJ.org and double the impact of your donation. The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life saving commerce ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ the work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold mission will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways, your membership of the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow circuit you're from house to submit like great questions and understandably so. Because this is a unique case before the Supreme Court because things are happening so rapidly, but that a new is retarded the break we are kind of walk you through different steps you said there some other unique things. The court, you could do here yet, but was interesting question came in from step on YouTube and many Democratic states filed to intervene in the case of 1/2 of Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan answer is no and the ring it say to me as on behalf of them, yes, about Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania. Yet if the meekest reaper. They moved to intervene, that's moved to intervene bright but Tammy will make them a part of the case with arguing this you may know that after they file amicus brief.

They have had about 20 states all blue to territories in DC so that that is happened not limit limits of the three ways the tub but with jurisdictions granted, I suspect they've Artie probably decided that we don't know that but I suspect is in the timing that's been decided. Jurisdiction is not.

It could be very quick order. It could be upon consideration by the court. The motions, the probability complaint motion for injunctive relief are denied. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent because they think jurisdiction is mandatory. That's it then. And that would be at no decline jurisdiction if they granted a big grant jurisdiction than they could still come the subs and decision that says no or decision that says it goes back to the state legislature or could they write an opinion that says when I can decide this.

We taken jurisdiction, but this is more of a political tiny question and there's a remedy available and if you think there's a problem. They passed the safe harbor that would be interesting. The remedy would be within the legislatures who under the Constitution. Are you were alluding to this are the ones who decide the election electors. Absolutely.

And so I think then the key question is will the members of the state legislative bodies have enough spine to actually intervene and I think that is the key question they had the constitutional right to intervene all along. They have so far declined to do so.

These are all Republican state legislatures with some very slim margins in and I think it's more likely state legislatures like that these four would take action if the court determined that the way they conducted their elections violated the law yet. I think that's right. I think that's very fair.

I think if the court doesn't go that far. I think Gerard is a little let a be a little less but if the court says he listened we don't need to decide this because you can. That is a little bit of a nod to say there were problems that he could read into that but but again these legislation have been very, very much. Balking at moving on this and less. There was a Supreme Court order saying your election was held illegally. Georgia you violate the law in Wisconsin. As you violate the law in Michigan and Pennsylvania. You can follow the basics of the U.S. Constitution, and thus it falls to you to figure this out Tiger score. The phones Alice Kilbride and Michigan Murawski states he brighter on the air call and praying that the court take that we get a good result. My question is, all of the mounting evidence that being brought to light by Sydney and Rudy is not being heard by the lower court.

My concern is what never dug it to the higher court and for future election. What is that how does that bold for our future election said none of these things are taking The future election leads legislatures of the states like Georgia's Leslie Amy need to fix their loopholes that have allowed for no verification the mail and loss on that already for this upcoming runoff election that RNC has filed a lawsuit against Georgia to ensure that their election is held legally that's the thing itself to the legislature to ensure that the statutes are enforced and that the political process.

Look they enter into a settlement agreement, a ravens murder. The Secretary of State enters into a settlement agreement with Stacy Abrams and her crew basically change what the statute in Georgia said you had to do the verifying absentee or mail-in ballot right to the Secretary of State of Georgia have to do that the statute was very clear.

He had no right to do that and that is exactly what Texas for example is saying is a departure from the Constitution, you violated your state law in doing something that you didn't have the right to do, thereby your electors should not be seated. You've diluted my elector who was elected constitutionally and in accordance with state law and therefore you know we need to remand this case as was Texas asking for and I'm reading the conclusion of their brief and it's really important what they're asking is don't Supreme Court enjoying the defendants from certifying the Presidential electors and from having them vote in the electoral college, or if you don't do that vacate their certification of Presidential electors and remand to the defendant state legislatures pursuant to the cot statute and the electors clause which is actually what the Constitution mandates right and that the counselor's mandate absolutely and so I think one of the key issues throughout this entire process and some of these issues do go back months, certainly weeks is where were state legislative officials they should of taken action. In my opinion, sooner but that doesn't negate at all about the state of Texas is argument here, but each and every state ought to examine the issues of election integrity election compliance and make sure that there are secretary of state engages in conduct that is consistent with statutory analysis and as I've said previously to go back to the state of Michigan. Jocelyn Benson, the secretary of the state of Michigan issued 7.7 million ballots for mailing purposes. That is clearly an prima facie leak in violation of Michigan law. Where were the state legislature.

Officers in terms of challenging that action.

We got a ship super check from James Carver, the great question.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in Texas favor. Could the individual states legislature simply choose to hold new elections. Prior to the January date which he points out God repair Ginsberg had that view with only those who are legal voters participated November 3 election and I'll obviously the people that are registered.

That's a really good question, but I think that because we passed the safe harbor. That's at the relief sought by Texas, not the relief sought by Texas that the relief James would have to be if it is granted just goes back to those four states legislature to select electric agreement that Constitution there can say constitutionsout of Texas nor the states and what intervene have have try to remember there should be a new election in the state now are in fact that's at the right remedy the right remedy under our law is that if you have if you go through the election and it is illegal and you find these irregularities in an issues because the what the legislature supposed to do it by the Constitution.

Article 2 in the and and they don't because they judge is doing in courts doing it and bureaucrats doing it an executive branch officials doing it in the remedy is to first start and see if the legislatures configured out if they can't converse then figures it out and both of those favor present from but no guarantees.

Even if the court sides completely 100% with Texas yet. Let me say this to our our radio audience and to our social media audience as well. Watching the various platforms where good jobs monitors very closely during the rest of the daily me through the weekend so we can go live on the radio stations this weekend because we don't have maritime what we can do, however, is if you're on raid listening on radio right now.

Let me encourage you when you're back at your home or future home. Now this listening on radio sign on to our social media platforms YouTube, Facebook word were delayed in rumbles not lie but you go to rumble Instagram wherever it might be Twitter force or which I guess a personal now, but also you can go to our YouTube page hit subscribe is its official ACLJays what it's called official ACLJ hit subscribe now and then click the belt and that will tell you what were going live night is not like him alive not a lot of notice. It just says were live in a pop up on your device. In this way as things develop.

This weekend we can come to you or later today. Even so, if everybody is on right now on social media share with your friends right now, but if you haven't subscribed, subscribe and get that bell or on Facebook to sit.follow and like an aspirin and click the positive for notifications that you want notifications when where lives.

We encourage you to do that right now were going to break organist. They live where tech is meant I would not be able to get as many calls as we wanted to those of you on the line. The were to try to do a rapidfire around like Lisa doing the old days where it's running a really quickly, so hang on the line and working to get to you during the break also.

This is important, obviously month thrust December the biggest mother's North American Cephalon just let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org to make an online gift any magic donate.

We had a matching gift or ACLJ.org to other donors that have already agreed to match her $10 $20 $50 summary $100 so that hundred comes from Beckley for us 200 so really important ACLJ.we encourage you do that and as I said subscribe to our social media pages and has a Facebook page. I have one is that Instagram is God, what are we at we all do engage on those and again subscribe appear on YouTube. It subscribe in the bell so you notified same on Facebook as well.

Will you be back with more but we go to the break to stay alive with our audiences and I'm just gonna fill you in on where we think this is headed in the moments I had my eyes a moment zigzagging is today, tomorrow, Sunday, and could well be today so will be doing that back to normal. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.

We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJays battle for the unborn Gold edition will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ Jesus were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online/American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJays matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ the work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online ACLJ phone call to be in Texas and will not appreciate that Jimmy you are on the air with us taking my call so in 2015 there were the case in Arizona versus a are you are the Supreme Court essentially a defined legislature as anybody that make law and I believe the Arizona State cup and actually had a provision which allowed the people make laws through ballot initiatives, and therefore, the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional for for the ARC to change redistricting laws that my question is, in light of that ruling could any of you foresee an outcome in which the Supreme Court somehow it then the definition of legislature to beyond the Congress of the defendant states and I think it's the existing constitutions and state legislatures, so it could be the state legislature is a good question.

A good analysis that is clearly a day like yes exactly to be one of those funky Supreme Court analyses like that it Constitution doesn't give any leeway there at state legislatures set the rules for selecting electors and how the electors hunters are chosen so obligate question really good question coming in because of all the different ways Supreme Court interprets words that remind you something to give folks how they interpret words. I can be very important in cases like this are specifically Alice go back to the phones are back in California online five hey Rebecca, nine determinant state of California and unfortunately our governor sent out out mail and direct writing our own Constitution probability that the Supreme Court based on the cactus case at and filed since Melanie kept brief filed by the state of California acquire case joining California next year, I can pack inherent potential that the Supreme Court rule and say any state within the yin-yang that didn't follow legislative contact and violated their lot would become a party to heal and based on whatever they decide not retroactively. But if the court says you gotta follow state laws as you deal with male bows onwards is not a pandemic exception to the Constitution that would apply to all 50 states, but not retroactively be also noted California did file a Rebecca brief in opposition so you never say that a well liberal state with liberal statewide government. They filed an amicus brief in opposition to the state of Texas, so they actually took the opposing view and did something proactively in this case before the US Supreme Court back to the phones we go Chris in Nevada online for a Chris, welcome to Jay Sekulow life. Michael, you're on the air and I wanted to know it doesn't go to the a herder to go the way that the Texans want and I'll get the really do looking for. What is the next step for the state. Ranking the Constitution is that Allstate must participate in the collection. Knowing what they know they backout nontender electors to address that the forks there was some disagreement where they could not confirm the slight sure your electors not likely to happen, but if they don't want to send electors it's up to the legislature if it's remanded to the legislatures of the states of Texas and is asking for the states can say we don't want to send electors. The end and then whatever that state is one part you have made it out of the Congress to decide if enough of the states there issue here could not come together with enough electoral votes to make one of these two men.

President states that for years. Back to phones we are retracting is because we guess we can was good. Lisa in Michigan online successfully supported states Haley sent Mike, I want all said and done, regardless of the outcome.

How do you think it's affecting future election.

Bottom line, are we going to have to go through that ever again or will the Supreme Court dictating the behavior on a set precedent. It's a one-liner from the Supreme Court that says what you hear this you know that yet. We could go through this again so that if they don't make a determination about whether or not there were violations of the law. Here, whether they were substantive enough to invalidate the election or they weren't substantive enough to validate the list if they don't get to that kind of analysis then yeah we could see this happening all over again. I think the for the left, for Democrats they found something that works very well for the mail-in ballots if they can figure out a way to get mail-in balloting as kind of universal in at least the blue states or states where they control the deer even purple states. I think they see a path to winning about every single Presidential election moving forward Ed and that's why even the Georgia races injury runoffs especially produce race which he wanted but it was that by the bite out of percent and so III think that's one of the concerns is that if such is the pandemic. It's that if you allow mail-in voting to become the norm in some states Artie have this report hasn't said that's unconstitutional because the state legislatures enacted that he enacted it in a very long way with Jess was an organ who've been doing it for you.

Arizona is that they been doing it for years think they partner with her doing but again I think that know if you don't get a full opinion for the court no present don't get no guarantee this is it what were bent back facing again in four years or even two years with the midterm elections. Some of the son as others quickly. Why can't I this is Sarah on YouTube. Why can't there be laws with the child's unconstitutional ballots mother have been an entry also has about counted after midnight on election day.

There have been all those lawsuits of a lot of the laws of the litigated edges of not been litigated such that if if the Supreme Court doesn't decide to take this out for goes against the Texas position there lawsuits out there debit none of them are outcome determine, I don't see an individual suit here. Changing the case I is a sedate estate so I see something happen in Michigan because is a legitimate lawsuit apparent end and they beautifully back of the legislature. Let doesn't get anybody that that that take design under 270. The done put up the book from over 270 so I don't. I think this is in a look will create employers maybe come up with something.

I don't oh maybe they will. But I think this is it legally speaking I think this is that yeah yes my view. I think this function needed only say this, you need to be repaired Okay look the lawyers have fought hard. The President is fought hard.

The various states on both sides of coming apart very aggressively back and forth so this was nobody left the field here, but at the end of the day. We are a country of laws so the Supreme Court rules.

Even if you disagree with it. It is the law of the land and that's the rule of law yeah and I think address you prepared when you reviewed Supreme Court repaired to lose. That's the honest just because it's a divided court on these kind of issues you have no idea where individual justice will go. It's not just a partisan kind of kind of case they will. They were dominated by this just show this and this and that the super chat from James.

I think we'll finish that. He said Harry said yesterday that Curtis will either choose to side with the Constitution and the role of the legislatures or implicitly side with the executive branch out with the latter resulted in permanent kind of neutering of all legislatures in perpetuity will no really I think at the end of the day. One lesson is that the voters should take note of this case and this issue and elect members of state legislatures with spine. Yes, that is something that better is that into going forward. Folks, let me courage on our social media platforms appear there right now subscribe if you're new to subscribe and hit the bell appear on Facebook follow like a notification hit the notification bar were also seen delayed on rumble seat tickets as there was a seal J.org and A know they could support our matching challenge going into the weekend. That's right ACLJ.org and throughout the entire month of December you can double the impact of your donation because we have a group of doubters rate to match every donation comes through the month of December.

Donate today@aclj.org. Talk to you. We need the American Central and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the seal J matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the world protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.