Changes

Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail<ref>Act 77 is itself controversial in that the Pennsylvania Constitution strictly limits who can vote absentee; the suit presumes the Act to be valid but that notwithstanding the controversy surrounding it, non-legislative actors revised it nonetheless to suit their interests.</ref>, 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of [[laches]] (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed ''before'' the election)<ref>However, the suit alleges that poll workers were barred from observing the results, which by definition could not have taken place prior to the election.</ref>, and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.<ref>As a suit filed at the Court itself, the Circuit Courts of Appeal wouldn't hear the case in the first instance.</ref><ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election</ref>

Pennsylvania has already hinted that its arguments will include: 1) the filing doesn't address Act 77, a 2019 bill which allowed state-wide voting by mail<ref>Act 77 is itself controversial in that the Pennsylvania Constitution strictly limits who can vote absentee; the suit presumes the Act to be valid but that notwithstanding the controversy surrounding it, non-legislative actors revised it nonetheless to suit their interests.</ref>, 2) the suit should be barred on the doctrine of [[laches]] (since in their opinion the suit should have been filed ''before'' the election)<ref>However, the suit alleges that poll workers were barred from observing the results, which by definition could not have taken place prior to the election.</ref>, and 3) the case at hand wouldn't result in a "circuit split" (the possibility that two different Circuit Courts of Appeal may rule differently), one of the factors that the Court considers when deciding to hear a case.<ref>As a suit filed at the Court itself, the Circuit Courts of Appeal wouldn't hear the case in the first instance.</ref><ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election</ref>

President Trump has sought leave to intervene as a party in interest in the case.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf</ref> In addition, 17 states (all of which voted in the majority for President Trump, and located in the South, West, and Midwest, led by [[Missouri]]) have sought leave to file an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief in the case.<ref>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</ref> Then, Attorney General Mark Brnovich of [[Arizona]] (which purportedly voted for Biden, and who's results were certified by [[RINO]] Governor Doug Ducey) has also sought leave to file his own amicus curiae brief in the matter<ref>https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf</ref>; Brnovich and Arizona are involved in a separate suit against the Democratic National Committee arguing in a matter involving Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act]].

President Trump has sought leave to intervene as a party in interest in the case.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf</ref>

 

In addition, 17 states (all of which voted in the majority for President Trump, and located in the South, West, and Midwest, led by [[Missouri]]) have sought leave to file an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief in the case.<ref>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</ref>

 

Attorney General Mark Brnovich of [[Arizona]] (which purportedly voted for Biden, and who's results were certified by [[RINO]] Governor Doug Ducey) has also sought leave to file his own amicus curiae brief in the matter<ref>https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/TX%20v%20PA%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20FINAL.pdf</ref>; Brnovich and Arizona are involved in a separate suit against the Democratic National Committee arguing in a matter involving Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act]].

 

 

==References==

==References==