Read on Twitter
I *do* want to pick it apart!
And... Wow. This is art.
154 pages.
One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".
1/ https://twitter.com/txnewsprincess/status/1336320870722097155
And... Wow. This is art.
154 pages.
One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".
1/ https://twitter.com/txnewsprincess/status/1336320870722097155
Typically one can sue a group of defendants together whey they acted in concert. It'd be a weird kind of joinder rule to be allowed to file one lawsuit against three different defendants under three different theories of wrongdoing solely because "it's all election stuff".
2/
2/
Each of these is alleged at a different state. None are *true* of course, but even if true I'm not sure why Paxton thinks he can file one suit against all three on three different theories.
And the third is just silly.
3/
And the third is just silly.
3/
"the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities... [including] [t]he appearance of voting irregularities".
I'm not familiar with the case which set the precedent that "I think it looks irregular" is significant and unconstitutional.
4/
I'm not familiar with the case which set the precedent that "I think it looks irregular" is significant and unconstitutional.
4/
I do like the "even the violations of *state* election law" as if he'd raised any other claims.
As @questauthority, @AkivaMCohen and the U.S district courts who have heard this arguments have noted: this gambit doesn't make a state law argument into a federal issue.
5/
As @questauthority, @AkivaMCohen and the U.S district courts who have heard this arguments have noted: this gambit doesn't make a state law argument into a federal issue.
5/
Though, again, it's really funny to bear in mind one of his claimed "violations" is "things that look to Ken Paxton like voting irregularities", so here he's claiming that "appearing to Ken Paxton to be irregular is a violation of the U.S constitution".
6/
6/
One shudders to think how he will wield the power to make something a constitutional violation by thinking it looks like it could be one.
7/
7/
But, okay, to be fair on page 7 he finally gives a table of contents for real.
It's kind of weird, though, since if we're meant to read these as two separate documents (filed together but functionally separate), the motion for leave's table is still incomplete.
8/
It's kind of weird, though, since if we're meant to read these as two separate documents (filed together but functionally separate), the motion for leave's table is still incomplete.
8/
Just... don't do this.
It's pretentious pandering and ultimately meaningless. No one is disagreeing about *whether* there should be an impartial and exact execution of the law, the argument is over what that execution *is*.
9/
It's pretentious pandering and ultimately meaningless. No one is disagreeing about *whether* there should be an impartial and exact execution of the law, the argument is over what that execution *is*.
9/
Don't do this either.
"Either you agree with me or the constitution is meaningless and the "American Experiment" [why is it capitalized] is dead" is appropriate for a campaign speech or a screed at a college Republicans event, not for the Supreme Court.
10/
![Don't do this either."Either you agree with me or the constitution is meaningless and the "American Experiment" [why is it capitalized] is dead" is appropriate for a campaign speech or a screed at a college Republicans event, not for the Supreme Court.10/](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EouXXjQUYAYQKvh.png "Don't do this either.\"Either you agree with me or the constitution is meaningless and the \"American Experiment\" [why is it capitalized] is dead\" is appropriate for a campaign speech or a screed at a college Republicans event, not for the Supreme Court.10/")
"Either you agree with me or the constitution is meaningless and the "American Experiment" [why is it capitalized] is dead" is appropriate for a campaign speech or a screed at a college Republicans event, not for the Supreme Court.
10/
1. "Here is what we know" should be followed by a colon.
2. Given the number of courts which have pointed out an utter dearth of evidence for this "know" is a ways off.
"Believe" is more accurate. "Fantasize about to justify our extremism" is probably most apt.
11/
2. Given the number of courts which have pointed out an utter dearth of evidence for this "know" is a ways off.
"Believe" is more accurate. "Fantasize about to justify our extremism" is probably most apt.
11/
Stylistic thing, but "presently" isn't doing shit here.
Also this whole "so much evidence is coming in, piling up, every day" raises the question: then why haven't any of you assholes shown us any?
12/
Also this whole "so much evidence is coming in, piling up, every day" raises the question: then why haven't any of you assholes shown us any?
12/
The answer, incidentally, is that Paxton is playing it fast and loose with the difference between admissible evidence and "bare accusations" or "well I just don't believe Biden would have won without cheating".
13/
13/
Because if there's one thing that will restore confidence in the election it's for the Supreme Court to say "we don't have confidence in the election so we're going to delay the statutory deadline so Trump boosters can go on a fishing expedition".
14/
14/
I'm going to mention this because "the constitution says it's up to the legislature so the courts can't intervene" is going to come up later:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes".
15/
![I'm going to mention this because "the constitution says it's up to the legislature so the courts can't intervene" is going to come up later:"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes".15/](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EouaoYcVQAcN1Hh.png "I'm going to mention this because \"the constitution says it's up to the legislature so the courts can't intervene\" is going to come up later:\"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes\".15/")
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes".
15/
If "such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" precludes judicial review or alteration, "may determine the Time... and the Day" would have the same effect making the 12/14/2020 deadline *also* "mandated under the constitution".
16/
16/
This relief being requested is also very weird. It's asking the Supreme Court to change a Congressionally-imposed deadline based on an explicit constitutional power, based on the alleged misconduct of a state.
17/
17/
This is where we should be getting into the meat and potatoes stuff. So, of course, it's a mess.
To start with: how do you get from "another state maybe violated state law" to *anything* Texas has standing to sue for? The closest I can get is acting in parens patriae.
18/
To start with: how do you get from "another state maybe violated state law" to *anything* Texas has standing to sue for? The closest I can get is acting in parens patriae.
18/
But that's a pretty narrow doctrine and would not apply to being parens patriae to the Republican voters in another state.
So... That's just a weird claim to lead off with.
19/
So... That's just a weird claim to lead off with.
19/
I'll keep an eye out, but I'm unaware of any case which supports the vindication of a legislature's power under the electors clause through a lawsuit brought by another state against the state whose powers are allegedly being violated.
20/
20/
At the point a lawyer is so far into the weeds of "I can't find a single thing to support the notion that the Supreme Court should let me sue on behalf of another state to vindicate its rights against itself" that he's citing goddamned Marbury v. Madison, we're in for a show
21/
21/
Don't do this, round 3:
Aside from this being repetitive, if you can't point to a single case to support your "long-settled principles" (hence needing to invoke the "spirit" of Marbury v. Madison), it's not "long-settled" anything.
22/
Aside from this being repetitive, if you can't point to a single case to support your "long-settled principles" (hence needing to invoke the "spirit" of Marbury v. Madison), it's not "long-settled" anything.
22/
That's... not a common pattern.
Those are, explicitly, two different patterns. The only commonality is "Ken Paxton doesn't like it".
23/
Those are, explicitly, two different patterns. The only commonality is "Ken Paxton doesn't like it".
23/
Ken is at least upfront that his goal is "disenfranchise voters who acted in good faith"
Not sure where he's getting this idea that the states not doing a thing they didn't have to, and him being unable to prove any individual ballots were invalid, makes them all invalid.
24/
Not sure where he's getting this idea that the states not doing a thing they didn't have to, and him being unable to prove any individual ballots were invalid, makes them all invalid.
24/
Much less where this concept of "constitutionally suspect" comes from, since the constitution doesn't contain any provisions about what makes a vote "legitimate" beyond "what the state decides"
The states which he's suing
Which violated... their own constitutional rights?
25/
The states which he's suing
Which violated... their own constitutional rights?
25/
Pretty sure most of them aren't "currently pending" at this point, but time makes fools of us all.
Or at least of Ken.
But let's check out this evidence. Well, at least his characterization of it.
26/
Or at least of Ken.
But let's check out this evidence. Well, at least his characterization of it.
26/
Dozens of witnesses testified under oath in these court cases? That's weird, since none of them made it to an evidentiary hearing. A whole lot of which was hearsay.
But unless it was submitted in any case in a format the courts accept
27/
But unless it was submitted in any case in a format the courts accept
27/
The word "authentication" will spring into the mind of every lawyer when the topic of "a video shot by... someone and posted on social media" comes up.
28/
28/
This one comes with a footnote, helpful!
Except it's the explanation that he didn't include this purported evidence in *this* 154 page crime against jurisprudence.
Then cites to one of the Michigan cases which doesn't appear to include the claim it's meant to footnote.
29/
Except it's the explanation that he didn't include this purported evidence in *this* 154 page crime against jurisprudence.
Then cites to one of the Michigan cases which doesn't appear to include the claim it's meant to footnote.
29/
