[ad_1]
The 17 US attorneys general who supported Texas in suing the Supreme Court were all Republicans, who seemed to want to please Trump’s millions of voters.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Dec. 8 that he filed a lawsuit with the United States Supreme Court, accusing four battlefield states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin of changing the electoral process to receive more votes by mail. unconstitutional, allowing “gross fraud” and then concealing evidence that Democrats have “stolen the vote.”
The Texas lawsuit requires the Supreme Court to issue an urgent decision, postponing the deadline for the Electoral College to confirm President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in these four states on Dec. 14.
The measure later received support from 17 other states, most with Republican governors. On December 9, President Donald Trump also filed a petition with the Supreme Court, requesting to join the Texas lawsuit. “This is the big demand. Our country needs a victory,” Trump previously tweeted.
However, many legal experts believe that the Texas lawsuit, along with the support of 17 other states, is almost legally invalid, with the accusations they consider “absurd and ridiculous.” capable of leading Trump’s legal war to a “pathetic” outcome.
Slate’s commentator, Mark Joseph Stern, even argued that Attorney General Paxton pushing the lawsuit “is more concerned with getting Trump paroled than making a coherent legal argument.” because he himself is being investigated by the FBI with allegations of corruption.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton spoke in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington in April 2016. Image: Reuters.
It is still unclear why the attorney general of 17 states, all Republicans, decided to join the “war” for Paxton’s Trump. In a separate statement, led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, they reiterated the Texas Attorney General’s charges, urged the Supreme Court to consider the case, and the proposed corrective action is to cancel casting all popular votes in all four states. who were sued and let the state parliaments select their own constituents.
Stern said it seems unlikely that a third of all attorneys nationwide will believe the allegations in the Texas lawsuit, because they are both seasoned court officials who run large agencies. the responsibility of resolving complex legal disputes that requires a high level of expertise that those with an unrealistic thinking cannot meet.
“We should think that these lawyers are all very rational. They are politicians who seek the best for their own interests. Like most Republican politicians, they understand that they need the support of voters on Trump’s side for their career.Stern analyzed.
In the presidential election, Trump lost to Biden, but still received more than 70 million votes, a record for a Republican candidate. Endorsement of Trump is believed to have a major impact on any Republican politician.
Therefore, Stern sees the statement supporting the Texas lawsuit as a tool for Republican attorneys general to show loyalty to Trump and the tens of millions of voters who back him.
“Republican voters in these 17 states can rest assured that their attorney general has been fighting for Trump to the last. With all 50 states and the Washington capital certifying the results, disregard for reality appears to be proof of belonging. Republican, “wrote the commenter.
However, the attorney general are not only ordinary politicians, but also experts in the legal field, requiring that basic standards of quality and legal knowledge be met. They cannot bring lawsuits that they know to be meaningless, they cannot lie in court, and they have to recognize professional independence regardless of who they are defending.
US President Donald Trump during an election campaign in May. AP.
These rules are particularly necessary when the attorney general represents all citizens of a state. Stern contends, however, that those who signed the statements from 17 states ignore them in support of a number of electoral fraud hypotheses without convincing evidence, This movement seems to indicate the radicalization trend of the conservative legal movement. Even if Trump leaves office, senior staff from his heavily influenced state judiciary will continue in office.
At least 13 of the 17 attorneys general who signed the petition were members of the Federal Bar Association, a strong and well-funded network of conservative attorneys. The organization enjoyed unprecedented success under Trump, when he nominated its members for judges, political appointments or hired private attorneys.
Much of the election-related lawsuit in recent months has been motivated by members of the Federal Bar Association, who want to eliminate as many votes as possible for the Democratic candidate. This conservative legal movement has also repeatedly said it was “dangerous and unacceptable” to criticize lawyers defending Trump in court.
There seem to be very few conservative lawyers willing to slow down the movement of the team they belong to. Stern argued that the attorney general’s signing of the petition was not out of control, but simply received “nod” from his colleagues to do whatever it took to keep Trump in the presidency.
Conservative lawyers are likely to continue to fight for Trump even after January 20. Stern cautions against taking this extreme trend lightly, because the attorney general who supports Trump will not leave his chair with the president after January 20. The same goes for his assistants, many of whom are members of the Federation of Federal Lawyers and have aspirations for higher positions.
Notably, most of the states supporting Trump were in the Southern Union during the American Civil War in the 19th century, causing Stern to worry about the prospect of a “cold civil war” at the heart of U.S.
The anxiety became clearer on December 8, when Republican Senator Kyle Biedermann announced his intention to present a legal document that would allow a referendum to separate Texas from the United States. it became an independent nation, because “the federal government no longer represents the values of the people of this state.”
Gloss (According to the Board)
