One Legal Option The Trump Team Could Look To Pursue

I want to begin this article by making a couple of disclaimers. First, and perhaps most importantly, I am not a lawyer. I cannot give legal advice or counsel, nor can I give expert opinion on the procedures and logistics of possibilities for the Trump legal team to seek legal action against a clearly rigged election result. However, I will be largely quoting actual lawyers, who themselves have already written plenty about the legal options of the Trump team, both back in late November and more recently on Christmas Eve.
 
So whatever legal opinions are shared here, they will largely either be quotes or paraphrases of these lawyers, or at least backed up by what these lawyers are sharing.
 
The second disclaimer I want to make is that I am not saying that Trump only has this option for resolving the issue of a stolen election. This one is a little less important, since I don’t think too many people would interpret that title as whittling down Trump’s options for victory, but I still want to make this perfectly clear simply due to my not trusting the Supreme Court at this point (for good reason) and not believing that they are willing to actually do anything to save the Republic or even themselves, not to mention that I also don’t trust the current Acting AG.
 
But regardless of those things, allow me to share with you the thoughts of a couple of prominent conservative legal scholars who are giving their opinions about the SCOTUS having rejected the Texas suit against four “swing” states (generally titled Texas v. Pennsylvania), and who make a suggestion (which they have gone so far as to formally submit to President Trump himself) about what legal steps the president can take to right the many wrongs committed during this election that have resulted in a fake president-elect.
 
First, they give their opinions of the ghastly decision by the SCOTUS to reject the Texas suit:
 
“In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”
 
“However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully – by a different plaintiff…”
 
The lawyers, named William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney, note that the SCOTUS made a massive mistake which could have huge ramifications if not corrected. In rejecting the suit, the Court committed wrongs against Texas and the roughly 20 states which supported its suit (which includes Arizona, for some reason), the United States itself, the President, and We the People.
 
You see, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, wrote that courts have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” Courts have the obligation to explain their decisions satisfactorily to the People, else the reasoning behind the decisions can easily be seen as partisan or corrupted. In its refusal to take up the case, the Court (all nine justices, though it was a 7-2 decision, technically) only issued the reason of “lacking standing”, explaining that reason with one sentence: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.”
 
That is simply not enough to issue reasoned judgment. It arbitrarily says “yeah, we’re not taking it up because I don’t really think you care about how other states do their elections.” I don’t know the exact wording of every page of Texas’ suit, but I can hardly imagine they went so far as to sue those four states (and be joined by around 20 other states) without providing much of a reason. Texas is most certainly interested in how another state conducts its election because the results of that election affect Texas, or at least, the process of that election’s result.
 
The winner of that election can institute policy which could harm Texas (Biden’s “green” policies would hurt the Lone Star State), but even more important than that, it would affect Texas illegally. No, a state cannot sue another state for having voted one way or another, as that would pretty much destroy the entire system of the Republic. Texas can’t sue Pennsylvania for having gone to Biden instead of Trump like California can’t sue Texas for having gone to Trump instead of Biden. However, Texas can sue Pennsylvania for having clearly and overtly (to the admission of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court) gone against both its state constitution and the U.S. Constitution by implementing and executing rules that are not legal or constitutional.
 
Because those rules were unconstitutional, and they helped Biden “win” that state, that is an illegal result, and so Texas has standing based on that, since they would be illegally and unconstitutionally affected by the result of the election. Furthermore, by doing what Pennsylvania and those other states did, they are utterly corrupting the electoral process by which we select our president. If those states are allowed to do what they did with impunity, then Texas’ voice, as well as all other states, don’t matter in this election. Their electoral power and voice are eliminated entirely because of an illegal and fake result in those states.
 
Like the lawyers said: “If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support.” Again, if it were all legal, Texas, Trump and his voters would all have to suck it up and admit defeat. But because it was blatantly illegal, we cannot simply accept the result because we know it is not legitimate.
 
So it’s not only absolutely unacceptable for the SCOTUS to have issued a one-sentence explanation for their decision regarding what is perhaps the biggest suit in the history of the country, but the explanation itself is illogical and constitutionally unsound.
 
The lawyers put it pretty well: “In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.”
 
If a state cannot be allowed to sue another state which has clearly broken not only its own constitution but also the constitution of the United States, what exactly is the reason for the union to remain? The Constitution is a contract which all states sign on to. If one of them breaks that contract and gets away with it, what reason is there for the others to keep honoring it? What reason is there for the states to remain unified under a broken contract?
 
It’s why I am not against secession if Biden ends up being the occupier of the oval office. Secession, ironically, would be the only way to preserve the union. We’re not quite there yet, and I pray to God we never get there, because secession would definitely lead to another civil war at one point or another. War is sometimes necessary, but it’s never ideal, and I would much rather avoid it if it can be avoided. But if it’s the only way to preserve the union, it cannot be taken off the table, due to its alternative: full-on communism.
 
At any rate, after disparaging the Supreme Court for its cowardly actions to defend the constitution at a crucial moment, the lawyers went on to note a way in which this legal case can still be made and be heard by the Supreme Court:
 
“A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation… Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.”
 
That strategy could theoretically work because the majority of the Supreme Court (two of which are solidly conservative and the others less so but appointed by Trump) could hardly argue that the United States of America does not have a standing or interest in defending the United States constitution.
 
My only worry is in the fact that it would be up to Acting AG Rosen to file such a suit, which I am not sure he would be willing to do. And at this point, having had great hopes for both Jeff Sessions and William Barr to seek justice wherever they can, without politics being involved in the decision-making process, and being completely disappointed by both of them when they were of great need, I cannot say I have much hope in Acting AG Rosen to seek this option, even under direct order from President Trump.
 
Trump’s legal team can’t issue this suit since that would have to make it a private suit as opposed to a federal one, and there would be almost zero chance that the SCOTUS would take it up.
 
Olson and McSweeney’s suggestion could be plausible, and if actually performed (that is, Rosen actually files that suit), would pretty much be guaranteed to have its day in court, but there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about it, at best. I do not trust anyone in the swamp, and while I don’t know a lot about Rosen, do not outright trust him to be willing to go through with this.
 
Of course, as I mentioned towards the beginning, this legal challenge is not all Trump has to right the wrongs of this election. One Republican representative and Senator objecting to the results of the election on January 6th are all that’s needed to send Congress (presided by Pence) into deliberation and activation of the 12th amendment, leading state legislatures in those states to having one representative voting for the party they have to vote for, leading to Trump’s victory.
 
But I write this to remind people that there are still a number of options out there, both politically and legally (Martial Law and the use of the military should be last resorts, but not off the table options), to ensure that the rightful winner of this election actually ends up winning this election.
 
The SCOTUS should absolutely be ashamed of itself for potentially destroying the Republic with that heinous decision, and the people involved in attempting to steal this election should face extreme consequences for their treason.
 
Psalm 106:3
“Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!”