An insult to the Supreme Court of the United States

PMost politicians are not interested in joining a loser or supporting a project that is doomed. But Donald Trump has not yet lost his ability to undermine political laws. Most Republican elected officials would rather spread the fairy tale of the president who was misled about his supposed landslide victory than finally start the post-Trump era. The party has now reached a new low.

The majority of the Republican parliamentary group in the House of Representatives and the 26 Republican justice ministers (!) In the states are asking the Supreme Court with adventurous justifications to invalidate a good ten million votes for the winner of the Democratic election Joe Biden . More than a hundred deputies and 17 ministers have already formally supported the corresponding complaint by the Texas Minister of Justice, Ken Paxton. Everyone joined Paxton knowing that the Texan is accused of financial fraud and suspected of abuse of office; his loving servant complaint could serve to win Trump’s forgiveness.

Most importantly, Republicans know that there is a high probability that the Supreme Court will not even accept the lawsuit. Because even legal construction is daring. The 18 Justice Ministers are based on state law, which is rarely used, that they can go directly to the Supreme Court if they are in conflict with other states. But to what extent would Texas and the other 17 states have been harmed if the unconstitutional election laws had actually been enforced in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin? The presidential election is not organized according to federal law: the fifty individual states and the capital district determine the electors who elect the president on December 14, according to 51 different electoral laws.

Texas of all places gets involved

Still, Texas is demanding that the Supreme Court of all four states ask parliaments to ignore the ballot count and to nominate voters as they see fit; in all four states, Republicans have a majority in the legislature. Coming from Texas, the advance seems particularly intolerant. Because hardly any state reacts more sensitively, for example, when the federal government interferes in its interests.

The timing of the constitutional complaint is also grotesque: the plaintiffs oppose electoral laws that, logically, were passed before the elections. In particular, it is once again about postal voting, which, without receipts, is declared the gateway to massive fraud. In some states, voting by mail was facilitated for relatively short periods of time due to the pandemic. In Michigan, on the other hand, the rule has been in effect since 2000. Even if Texas could explain why it was one of the victims, Paxton would have to explain why it didn’t file the lawsuit before the election.