Read on Twitter
This Texas filing is so unbelievably embarrassing and offensive. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=
As others have noted, Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins is not on the SCOTUS filing — despite him being the state’s lead SCOTUS lawyer. There is, however, a “special counsel” noted. Is it this guy? https://larryjoseph.com/
If paragraph 7 of the “bill of complaint” isn’t the end of this, paragraphs 9-12 definitely should be. There are 144 such paragraphs, followed by a similarly insulting brief. (We don’t even need to get here, though, because the Court needn’t, and shouldn’t, even take the case.)
In any event, Texas is the wrong party in the wrong court at the wrong time with the wrong claims and no actual evidence to back up those claims. In other words, this is not real litigation. It is a show, and the Supreme Court should castigate Paxton and Texas accordingly.
Also, their election “expert” from those paragraphs 9-12 appears to be a (former?) economics professor whose specialty is energy markets and regulation. https://www.thinkbrg.com/people/charles-cicchetti/
An official from the Republican-led state sued by Texas today responds to their SCOTUS filing. https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1336369956955381760
This coming from Lin Wood or Sidney Powell would be totally ridiculous. Coming from the Attorney General of a large state makes this almost unfathomable, even if it's just as completely void of legal merit. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf
I get that lots of folks are focused on the Paxton/pardon angle, and, fine, but I do think attention should be paid to what is actually being done — a state is suing to disenfranchise four other states — and that should not be lost in the easy hits on Paxton.
Missed when this came in because I went for a walk, but the response to Texas's filings is due by Thursday afternoon. And, yes, I'd echo what Steve says here: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336449310758670339
While no more legally valid than Texas's initial filing, this entire concept, and the fact that these people are going along with this fact-free undermining of democracy, is really appalling. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf
It's an exercise in ridiculous supplication to Trump. https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336766484501180419
Gabe is right. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1336765640259104771
Never breathed such a sigh of relief as when I saw Ohio NOT on this document.
A good, if slight, point. https://twitter.com/sunriseseachday/status/1336768483619713026
The only lawyer on the Trump brief is John Eastman, the lawyer who wrote the thing about Harris not being eligible to be Veep.
What an amazingly embarrassing document!
In addition to Trump's filing (more on that) in the Texas case, there were 3 other submissions today. Amusingly, each was presented in a different way. The Carter Phillips et al., filing, unsurprisingly, got it together correctly — and obliterates Texas. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163215/20201209144840609_2020-12-09%20-%20Texas%20v.%20Pennsylvania%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Missouri%20et%20al.%20-%20Final%20with%20Tables.pdf
Roy Moore and some other people, who also filed in the PA Rep. Kelly case, filed here. They say all early voting is illegal, but not all of it, but like, what happened here definitely is. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163248/20201209163606702_TX%20v.%20PA%20Motion%20and%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Sorry, here's the correct Carter Phillips et al., filing link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf
Finally, Arizona's AG submitted a request to file an amicus brief, but ... did not include the actual brief it wishes to submit. They suggest they're not siding with anyone, and the summary of what they say they wish to file is a jumble of not-much. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163258/20201209171850333_TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf
Further explanation: "respecting the motions" is language used when you're not backing either party. Otherwise it's generally, "in support of" or "in opposition to."
