Though at one time they were bitter political opponents, President Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have solidified a powerful friendship and have become great allies over the past four years.
That’s why it’s not surprising that Cruz — a talented litigator with U.S. Supreme Court experience — has offered to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court with regard to Trump’s Pennsylvania election-related legal case, should the High Court agree to hear it, according to Newsmax.
The case at hand, which challenges the expansion of absentee ballot voting in the state using COVID-19 as an excuse, was filed by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, 2020 U.S. congressional candidate Sean Parnell and former state representative candidate Wanda Logan.
Cruz announced to his social media following that he’s primed and ready to use his vast experience arguing — and winning — SCOTUS cases in order to give them their best shot at prevailing.
“If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument,” Cruz tweeted.
“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.”
Though the status of the case remains unclear at this point, Cruz’s public urging for the High Court to take the case is another silver bullet for the legal team as they haven’t had much luck getting the High Court’s attention as of late.
At the crux of the lawsuit appeal filed by Kelly is the accusation that the state went against its own Constitution when it changed various rules and procedures on how to deal with the increase in absentee ballots.
Cruz appears to be all in as far as believing in the case and his willingness to back it.
“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long,” Cruz said. “The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.”
Cruz was the first U.S. senator to publicly support Kelly’s case. Given his long and distinguished legal career — including being the longest-serving solicitor general in the history of Texas and a former law professor — there’s probably not a more well-suited legal professional to make convincing oral arguments in the nation’s highest court.
Before anyone gets too excited, we have to take this one day at a time. The first major challenge for Cruz, Kelly and others involved will be to actually convince SCOTUS to entertain the case. If they do, it could be an absolute game-changer in this nasty, post-election turmoil.