Ted Cruz Could Be Arguing the
Pennsylvania Election Case at the
Supreme Court Soon
Townhall,
by
Katie Pavlich
Original Article
Posted By: Ladyhawke,
12/7/2020 4:45:02 PM
Constitutional scholar and Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced Monday afternoon if the Supreme Court takes up the election case pending in Pennsylvania, he will make the oral argument.
"Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I've publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA. Petitioners’ legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before #SCOTUS, if the Court grants certiorari.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Ladyhawke 12/7/2020 4:47:33 PM (No. 625513)
But, another article recently posted on this site from CNN is claiming Trump’s legal efforts are ending!
Cruz is uniquely qualified to present this case!
34 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
TXknitter 12/7/2020 4:52:04 PM (No. 625515)
Our side has an embarrassment of riches working all sides. I am so happy the brilliant Jay Sekulow is on our President’s team too. I
am thrilled if Cruz is part of the team for justice in Pennsylvania.
42 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Nimby 12/7/2020 4:58:18 PM (No. 625523)
Go Ted!
33 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Califedup 12/7/2020 5:07:40 PM (No. 625532)
Is this the same Ted Cruz who just voted for Mike Lee's visa slap at the America workers bill that passed by unanimous voice vote? That one?
8 people like this.
I would prefer a practicing lawyer who has extensive experience with the SCOTUS!!! Not a politician!
10 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
wilarrbie 12/7/2020 5:13:31 PM (No. 625539)
Thus far it seems all courts involved are simply shrugging off presented evidence. Why? Is it not valid? The scope and mechanisms of the apparent fraud MUST be allowed before the public - but they want to strangle this baby in the crib!
6 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
red1066 12/7/2020 5:21:25 PM (No. 625552)
The MSM media as well as the local media just assume the election is over with references to Trump's so called failures in courts.
5 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
MorningStar 12/7/2020 5:23:21 PM (No. 625554)
Sen. Ted Cruz has EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE arguing successfully before the SCOTUS, prior to becoming a US Senator!! It's been generally known and touted almost every time Cruz has been mentioned with his strategy associated with the current PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD.
42 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
zoidberg 12/7/2020 6:53:11 PM (No. 625621)
"if the Court grants certiorari"
That's a big if.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
stablemoney 12/7/2020 7:35:15 PM (No. 625657)
Cruz won't be arguing anything unless the Court takes the case. They have not, so put this article in a file and pull it out when the Court agrees to take up the case.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
preciosodrogas 12/7/2020 10:39:39 PM (No. 625753)
I think SCOTUS will stretch a bit to take this case. It's too important to the country to do otherwise. I think Justice Alito's actions suggest as much. The federal question is there. Does the Constitution protect our rights. This issue of faith in our voting process strikes at the very heart of our way of life. This idea of "We The People" cannot function if we cannot be guaranteed that our rights to express our will through our representatives We would no longer be a nation of laws. It strikes at the foundation of our government.
At present, the courts have denied President Trump's the motions for relief, because, as three or four (or more) courts have pointed out there was a lack of admissible evidence. That issue will not go away. It is up to the lawyers to resolve that problem. SCOTUS and the Courts of Appeal must have something to hang their hats on. It, must be met with specific allegations and specific evidence, sufficient to support the relief being requested.
We don't get a re-do with the Court. If there is a problem, which all the courts, except for the Pa. Kelly case, has stated there is then, whether they agree or not President Trump's lawyers would do well to look through the yes of the courts to see if there is something they are missing. Even if they don't agree, make the effort it can't hurt but it could help.
Another thought, I wonder how many people are on PT's team? We have some 6 states in question and an overwhelming amount of evidence. How many people are there put that together: reviewing thousands of pages, interviewing x number of witnesses, running down their stories to be certain, lawyers licensed in each state that know the local rules of procedure and the courts (and judges), researching, drafting, preparing memoranda, anyhow you get the idea. Just to check out all the evidence would take an army. I also wonder if some of those bombs, krakins, etc. are not plants by the evil ones to bury the good guys?
1 person likes this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Nimby 12/7/2020 11:06:14 PM (No. 625761)
#5 don’t pooh pooh Ted Cruz’s credentials. Ted Cruz not only clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme court. but was also the solicitor general of Texas. He was part of Bush legal team in the Bush V Gore legal battle before the SCOTUS. He has a record for successfully arguing before the SCOTUS as the solicitor general of Texas. He has authored 70 briefs and has presented 43 oral arguments before the Supremes
14 people like this.
Cruz arguing Pennsylvania on Constitutional grounds would be a slam dunk. But that's only PA - how does the Trump team get the remaining battleground states before the Supreme bench?
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
TXknitter 12/8/2020 11:36:47 AM (No. 626206)
Well #12, you are so right and I don’t believe most of us underestimate any of the good Senator’s legal credentials and oratory gifts. We in Texas especially just understand Ted has other agendas too.
1 person likes this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
pensom2 12/8/2020 2:49:43 PM (No. 626328)
Arguing orally before the Supreme Court of the United States in this matter in which the Constitution hangs by a thread, I'll take Ted Cruz any day over Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is a good man and a fine attorney, but he's growing old and his oral arguing skills are not what they once were. Ted Cruz is an ardent conservative and is, by experience and talent, superbly qualified for this role. He may have other agenda, but he is too professional to allow any other issue to subvert his complete dedication to his client and the American electorate. Virtually all leftist national politicians have abandoned their oath to defend the constitution. No true conservative national politician has done so. If chosen, Ted Cruz will perform splendidly in oral argument before the highest court in the land. Moreover, I don't think Ted Cruz would offer to argue this case if he didn't believe there the plaintiffs have a good chance to win it.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ladyhawke"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)