While a recent case rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court wasn’t filed on behalf of Trump’s lawyers, it still marked a blow to what could have — and should have — been a pathway to the first major legal victory for America’s election integrity and the Trump campaign.
Even more disappointing for Trump and his millions of supporters is that because the High Court rejected Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly’s case, we won’t be able to see Texas Sen. Ted Cruz orally argue the merits of the case in the Supreme Court as he vowed he would do, should they ask him to do it.
Cruz, who used his high-profile platform to encourage SCOTUS to give the case a chance, expressed his disappointment in the rejection in a Tuesday tweet.
“I’m disappointed the Court decided not to hear the case challenging the election results in PA,” the Texas senator tweeted. “This appeal filed raised important & serious legal issues, & I believe the Court had a responsibility to ensure our elections follow the law & the Constitution.”
I’m disappointed the Court decided not to hear the case challenging the election results in PA. This appeal filed raised important & serious legal issues, & I believe the Court had a responsibility to ensure our elections follow the law & the Constitution. My full statement: pic.twitter.com/X3ZnomaUkd
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 9, 2020
Cruz insisted that the post-election turmoil has done nothing but create “anger and division” among the American people, while adding that the Pennsylvania case showed a clear-cut situation of the state ignoring its own Constitution in the run-up to the election, specifically on the subject of how it processed mail-in ballots.
“Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition,” Cruz said.
In Rep. Kelly’s lawsuit, he and the other plaintiffs — which were comprised of other Pennsylvania politicians — argued that the state’s General Assembly ignored the Pennsylvania Constitution when coming up with rules about the mail-in voting process.
Do you trust the election results after the recounts and court decisions to date?
0% (0 Votes)
0% (0 Votes)
“Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election,” Kelly’s lawsuit read.
Adding to the frustration was the fact that the Supreme Court flat-out denied the request, without issuing any explanation or dissents from any of the Justices.
News of the rejected case came not long after it was announced that federal judges in both Michigan and Georgia dismissed attorney Sidney Powell’s attempts to overturn results in those states, with both judges essentially saying that the evidence that would entertain such a request wasn’t there.
Hopefully, Trump and his lawyers will get one last shot at victory when the Supreme Court takes up a case filed on Tuesday by the state of Texas against a number of swing states that Trump lost in.