#2. To: Deckard and other nor retards (#0) I have tried to tell you before – And I will try once atain to tell you. When you post shit like this in the To block – It does not show up in under Latest Comments on on a person’s Check Pings list. It only “hides” where you posted it. Ir that is what you wanted to to - Then you did it.

#2. To: Deckard and other nor retards (#0) Deckard – I had no idea that Stone looked on you as a “nor retard.” I am surprised and somewhat shocked to be learning this now. Uh – BTW … Exactly what is a “nor retard” anyway …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA

Exactly what is a “nor retard” anyway …

It's a massive storm in the the upper north Atlantic coast of the United States that has an IQ of 50.

has an IQ of 50.

Accompanied by ideations of grandiosity (aka delusions of grandeur).

...during manic and hypomanic episodes. People experiencing grandiose delusions often describe larger- than- life feelings of superiority and invulnerability.

In short, grandiosity is an exaggerated sense of one's importance, power, knowledge, or identity, even if there is little evidence to support the beliefs.

Gatlin may be struggling with mania. If he strips nekkid and runs through the streets...diagnosis confirmed.

[I picked up all this lingo working on a psych ward during college. I'm practically a psychiatrist :-)].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Za3OKNKG-8&feature=emb_logo

EVIDENCE: SINGLE STACK PROCESSED THREE TIMES

How did she know that stack of ballots favored Biden?

That's a reasonable question.

Another reasonable question is: Why are there no partisan or nonpartisan observers present to question or challenge ballot counting?

There's a big stnkin' heap of something that's transpired in key cities before, during and after this election.

Because her people brought them in.

In suitcases.

Why are there no partisan or nonpartisan observers present to question or challenge ballot counting?

Observers and the press were there until around 10:30pm. After they left there was a non-partisan observer, the counting was recorded on camera, and the recount was observed in person.

How did she know that stack of ballots favored Biden?

Why would she run a random stack three times?

and the recount was observed in person

Now there is some Grade-A nickel plated horseshit.

That was not a recount by the way.

After they left there was a non-partisan observer

lol. No one is not partisan.

the counting was recorded on camera

Where is the video. There isn't one that can actually see what is going on.

You're gullible. Why was Rubys ballots missing postmarks?

After they left

You mean after they were told to leave.

Why did CNN say they left because of a pipe bursting?

www.thegatewaypundit.com/...atl-mayor-keisha-bottoms/

- - - - - - - - - -

Also, the guy with his back to the camera during the USB drive passoff (with Ruby and Shaye) has been identified as Lawrence Sloan and apparently he is the same guy who featured in an earlier video opening ballot envelopes, got mad, gestured the finger, crunched some paper up and threw it in the trash. Ruby canceled a new interview today and lawyered up.

www.wabe.org/why-an-elect...georgia-went-into-hiding/

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3912855/posts?page=18#18

See below video at 2:55

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKcPoCNW8AA

Listen to Shaye tell Lawrence "You're gonna get caught."

thedonald.win/p/11QlP3guF...rubys-daughter-saying-/c/

- - - - - - - - - -

MOST IMPORTANT:

Hearing Justice Alito had scheduled for 9 Dec (one day after the drop dead date) has been rescheduled to 0900 on 8 Dec 2020, bringing it within the window of opportunity for judicial intervention.

www.thegatewaypundit.com/...ia-lawsuit-flip-election/

more likely

harmless crack pipe

love
boris

Have been watching these guys for few months. Watch and let me know what you think of this.

What do you think?

youtu.be/v-tb11okydc

Other Kracken lawsuits appear to have been theatrics designed to appeal to public opinion but with little chance of ever reaching any judicial consideration of the merits of the case. They fall to attacks on jurisdiction, standing or laches (untimely filing).

The most salient point of attack against Texas, as referenced by Frei, is standing. By having a state be a party, original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is assured under U.S. Const. Art. 3, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."

Frei did not discuss standing at length and it may be a real dogfight at Scotus. See the Lin Wood petition request and how it was shot down on standing:

The standing inquiry is threefold: “The litigant must prove (1) an injury in fact that (2) is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561). Wood must “demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought”—Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017)—and shoulders “the burden of establishing [each] element[ ].” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.

Injury in fact is “the first and foremost of standing's three elements” and requires Wood to show that he suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547-48. To be “particularized,” the alleged injury “must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 n.1. Wood must demonstrate “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” as a federal court “is not a forum for generalized grievances.” Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018). This requires more than a mere “keen interest in the issue.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2416 (2018). The alleged injury must be “distinct from a generally available grievance about government.” Gill, 138 S. Ct. at 1923. See also id. at 1929 (explaining that a person's “right to vote is individual and personal in nature . . . [t]hus [only] voters who allege facts showing disadvantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue to remedy that disadvantage”) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561 (1964); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 206 (1962)). Claims premised on allegations that “the law . . . has not been followed . . . [are] precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government . . . [and] quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing.” Dillard v. Chilton Cnty. Comm'n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 207-08). See also Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 440­41 (2007) (“Our refusal to serve as a forum for generalized grievances has a lengthy pedigree. . . . [A] generalized grievance that is plainly undifferentiated and common to all members of the public” is not sufficient for standing).

Wood alleges he has standing because he is “a qualified registered elector residing in Fulton County, Georgia” who has “made donations to various Republican candidates on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 elections, and his interests are aligned with those of the Georgia Republican Party for the purposes of the instant lawsuit.” These allegations fall far short of demonstrating that Wood has standing to assert these claims.

It is all technical, but it is a big threat to gaining consideration on the merits. The attorneys in the prior lawsuits are too god to believe they had standing based on being registered voters. The Texas lawsuit is unique and different.

There has been much discussion of the merit arguments of various lawsuits, but not much on the technical requirements. The technical aspect is the real battle.

On the merits, Helen Keller could see massive fraud and unlawful irregularities. The analysis of the underlying data using Benford's Law indicated that the data patterns were highly irregular and strongly indicated they resulted from some form of human intervention. Benford's Law does not identify fraud, but identifies anomalies in large sets of data. It is absolutely impartial and is merely an observation of the nature of the data itself.

The statistical analyses render the results all but impossible due to natural causes. But wait, there's more. We have video of one lady running the same stack of ballots thru a machine for about ten minutes, over and over. We have machines changing votes. It does not matter how or to whom. It is not a glitch, it is a feature. It is an unexplained feature. Why is it there at all?

There are contracts where all right to look at the source code is given away by the state or county. The ownership of the manufacturer is shrouded in secrecy and shell companies.

I believe the corruption is real and apparent and the rogue states have no valid defense on the merits. However bad it reeks of corruption, the fight will be over getting the merits of the case before the court for consideration. Other cases appear to have been for show, to while away time while gaining information and raising public awareness. This will be fought near the deadline where a judicial intervention will have a drastic effect.

The 12th Amendment provides, in part:

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Note that if a state does not certify a slate of appointed electors, the number for a majority is reduced. The number is not 270, but a majority of the electors appointed. It has historically happened where a state failed to certify any electors. It is not necessary for Trump to get more delegates by being awarded more states. If a sufficient number of challenged states do not certify appointed electors to the point where Biden has fewer EC votes than Trump, Trump may win.

Note the prayer for relief and the alternatives within:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff States respectfully request that this Court issue the following relief:

A. Declare that Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin administered the 2020 presidential election in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

B. Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.

C. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College.

D. Enjoin Defendant States’ use of the 2020 election results for the Office of President to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and authorize, pursuant to the Court’s remedial authority, the Defendant States to conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.

E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States’ legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.

F. Enjoin the Defendant States from certifying presidential electors or otherwise meeting for purposes of the electoral college pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 5, 3 U.S.C. § 7, or applicable law pending further order of this Court.

G. Award costs to Plaintiff State.

H. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The real questions to be decided by the court will be whether Texas has standing for this lawsuit, and whether the court has authority to grant the requested relief.

Scotus has ordered the defendant states to file replies.

Dec 08 2020

Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.

This is a significant effort by Texas.

Regarding Benford's law, this clip argues, effectively in my opinion, that it doesn't apply in the case of Biden's vote totals. The gist of it is that Biden was heavily favored in largely populated & few precincts and Trump was favored in a great many more smaller populated precincts. Because of that, the law fails to apply as it normally does in many data sets.

On the standing of TX and other states to sue, you know more on this topic than me, of course, but it seems on its face TX would have no standing to sue as each state should be sovereign in its method of choosing electors, even if such states were to openly embrace a fraudulent election system within their own borders.

But it certainly would make for a dramatic Trump win if he should end up winning the presidency not on his own campaign's actions or that of Sidney Powell, but rather through the actions of TX and numerous other states acting completely independent of Trump or his campaign. No one could credibly say Trump stole the election from Biden.

By now you also know the suit to force PA to disregard all mail-in ballots for reason that the mail-in ballot law violated the PA Constitution has been dismissed without any comment by the USSC. I'm thinking they are ignoring it for lack of timeliness in filing, given the election has already occurred. Seems to me the PA Republicans dropped the ball for failing to raise this Constitutional issue well before the election, and doing so now is asking the USSC to clean up PA's mess after PA needlessly allowed the milk to be spilt on the floor. A similar suit filed for the 2022 election may, perhaps, actually get a hearing?

By now you also know the suit to force PA to disregard all mail-in ballots for reason that the mail-in ballot law violated the PA Constitution has been dismissed without any comment by the USSC.

This is incorrect. The petition for injunctive relief while the case is pending was denied. The case itself remains. Scotus declined to intervene with the Electoral College before they had decided the case. I'm thinking this Pennsylvania case (and anything else pending) may be combined with the Texas case, with the court issuing one ruling deciding upon all.

it seems on its face TX would have no standing to sue as each state should be sovereign in its method of choosing electors, even if such states were to openly embrace a fraudulent election system within their own borders.

While a state may choose electors by popular vote (or not), it seems questionable that they have any legal right to run rigged elections, or to certify as true and correct, that which cannot be verified.

Perhaps analagous would be if, in 1860, the southern states had filed a lawsuit against the northern states, asserting a violation of their constitutional rights (as opposed to adopting ordinances of secession). Could the court have assumed jurisdiction, recognized standing, and have ruled upon the issue? Or would it have had to rule the states lacked standing and their alternative was to engage in secession and a civil war?

The legal matter is not clear. Surely, there should be some avenue to take which results in the contested votes at least being examined.

The states are not free to enable the votes of aliens (legal or illegal aliens), nor the votes of underage voters or non-residents. The mail-in ballots were an open invitation to fraud; ditto the drop boxes.

As for the problems with Dominion machines, the Trump campaign made clear that problems have been apparent for years. The doctrine of laches would likely prevent an untimely complaint filed only after the election.

It's a mess. It seems there must be some judicial avenue available, but it is not clear that there is (or is not).

This is incorrect. The petition for injunctive relief while the case is pending was denied. The case itself remains.

Really??

That seems to completely contradict the reporting on the case.

www.foxnews.com/politics/...court- pennsylvania-ruling

The high court, which includes three justices nominated by Trump, left intact a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to toss a lawsuit from Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. that contested the 2019 law, landing a "big blow" to the president and his legal team, Turley explained.

The plot thickens...

Really??

That seems to completely contradict the reporting on the case.

Really. Here are links to the Application and the Docket Report.

This Application for injunctive relief is what was denied.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162573/20201203162739451_Final_Emergency%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction.pdf

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION PENDING THE FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

FROM THE DOCKET REPORT

Dec 03 2020
Application (20A98) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Alito.

Dec 08 2020
Application (20A98) referred to the Court.

Dec 08 2020
Application (20A98) denied by the Court.

That was an APPLICATION or petition requesting injunctive relief PENDING THE FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

The yet to be filed petition for writ of cert would be the actual case in main. A petition for cert requests that a case be heard. Such a petition is not even on the docket report yet.

I would reckon their chance of success is near zero and they may not even file a petition for writ of cert. They are unlikely to survive challenges before any consideration of the merits could occur.

On the standing of TX and other states to sue,

From what I undserstand, Texas, in the current case claims standing through Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Maybe the legal eagles here can put me right if this is not so. What is at issue is equal protection of voters among states that have disparate policies regarding the franchise afforded voters in states named in the filing.

Counting Texas, that now makes 18 states. That is now more than one-third of the entire union.

Amici curiae are the States of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia

“If other states don’t follow the Constitution and if their state legislature isn’t responsible for overseeing their elections … it affects my state,” said Ken Paxton the Texas Attorney General in an interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday.

Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit last Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election procedures conducted in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

“Our job is to make sure the Constitution is followed and that every vote counts. And in this case, I’m not sure every vote was counted. Not in the right way,” continued Paxton.

www.zerohedge.com/politic...souri-joins-texas-taking- election-fight-supreme-court

MOTION OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, TO INTERVENE IN HIS
PERSONAL CAPACITY AS CANDIDATE FOR
RE-ELECTION, PROPOSED BILL OF COMPLAINT
IN INTERVENTION, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO INTERVENE

Previous presidential litigation had been brought by the campaign as a separate legal entity and not personally by Donald J. Trump.

Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit last Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election procedures conducted in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

That is Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. Missouri filed an Amicus Brief joined by 16 additional states. President Trump filed a motion to intervene. This is the case to watch.

Don't understand enough about procedure to know if that's possible at this point in time.

From what I undserstand, Texas, in the current case claims standing through Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Correct. This is a case with ORIGINAL jurisdiction existing in the Supreme Court. It starts and ends at Scotus. There is no petition for a writ of cert as in the overwhelming majority of cases that are brought on Appellate jurisdiction. Using state against state litigation, jurisdiction does not apply in any court but the U.S. Supreme Court.

17 states as amici is sufficient. More important is that the President has filed to be a Plaintiff in Intervention.

See the following extract from the President's motion to intervene:

14

JURISDICTION

1. Because this is a Complaint in Intervention to a matter already pending pursuant to this Court’s original jurisdiction over “controversies between two or more States,” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), intervention is permissible even absent independent grounds for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction. See, e.g., Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 745 n.21 (1981) (permitting intervention of private parties as plaintiffs); Texas v. Louisiana, 416 U.S. 965 (1974) (city in Texas permitted to intervene); Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) (1922) (noting that numerous parties intervened to make claims to the property over which the Court had taken control and that “ancillary” jurisdiction over such claims was proper “although independent suits to enforce the claims could not be entertained in that court”).

2. In matters invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction, this Court looks to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a guide. Rule 17.2

- - - - - - - - - -

34

II. President Trump’s Proposed Complaint in Intervention Meets the Standards Set By This Court.

Original proceedings in this Court follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “The form of pleadings and motions prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are followed.” S. Ct. Rule 17.2. This would include motions for leave to intervene, and therefore such a motion “must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 24(c). The complaint must set out “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 8(a)(2). President Trump’s proposed Bill of Complaint in Intervention, which is attached hereto, meets those requirements.

A. The claims raise a “case or controversy.”

Like any other action, an original action must meet the Article III criteria for a case or controversy: cognizable injury to the plaintiffs, causation by the challenged conduct, and redressable by a court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561-62 (1992). Plaintiff in Intervention has standing under those rules.

As a candidate, President Trump clearly has a cognizable, particularized injury to challenge an election that was conducted contrary to state law, and therefore contrary to the “manner” set out by state legislatures in exercising their plenary power under Article

35

II of the federal constitution. The violations of state law were caused by the Defendant States and the election officials of the States. And a declaration by this Court that, as a result of those violations, electors cannot be legally certified or cast votes in the electoral college (at least until separately ratified by the state Legislature) would provide redress for the Plaintiff in Intervention’s injury.

1. Plaintiff in Intervention suffered an injury in fact.

Candidates for the office of President clearly have standing to challenge a state’s compliance with the election laws pursuant to which the election for presidential electors is conducted, even though, technically, the election chooses the electors who are pledged to that candidate, not the candidate himself. See, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 738 n.9 (1974).

2. The Defendant States caused the injuries.

Non-legislative officials, in the Defendant States, either on their own initiative or in conjunction with lawsuits designed to change state law, directly caused the challenged violations of the Electors Clause. In the case of Georgia, acquiesced to such changes by settling a federal lawsuit. The Defendants thus caused Plaintiff in Intervention’s injuries.

3. The requested relief would redress the injuries.

Plaintiff in Intervention adopts the arguments of the State of Texas relative to redressability. Brief 15-17.

36

B. Plaintiff in Intervention also has prudential standing.

Beyond the constitutional baseline, standing doctrine also poses prudential limits like the zone-of-interests test. Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Org., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970). Prudential doctrines pose no barrier here.

First, the injuries asserted here are “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the … constitutional guarantee in question.” Camp, 397 U.S. at 153. The Court has relied on the structure of the Constitution to provide the one-person, one-vote standard, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 & n.10 (1964), and this case is similar. The structure of the Electoral College provides that each State is allocated a certain number of Electors depending upon that State’s representation in Congress and that each State must abide by constitutional requirements in the appointment of its Electors. When the election in a State violates those requirements in a presidential election, the interests of the candidates in that election are harmed.

C. Balance of Equities

As this Court recognized in McPherson v. Blacker, the authority to choose presidential electors: is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions. ... Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume

37

the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away or abdicated.

146 U.S. at 35 (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). The Defendant States would suffer no cognizable injury from this Court’s enjoining their reliance on an unconstitutional vote.

Plaintiff in Intervention adopts the arguments of Texas relative to mootness, ripeness, political question, adequacy of an alternate remedy or forum, Brief 17-22.

III. The Preservation of the Rule of Law Is Essential for the Preservation of Our Nation’s Belief In the Legitimacy of Self-Government

Despite the chaos of election night and the days which followed, the media has consistently proclaimed that no widespread voter fraud has been proven. But this observation misses the point. The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable.

One more state will make 40%. Six more will make 50%.

www.texastribune.org/2020...-voting-laws-coronavirus- pandemic/

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/08/texas-voting-laws-coronavirus-pandemic/

How Texas has made it easier and harder for people to vote in the pandemic

Voting rights groups say last-minute changes to the voting process in Texas have created confusion. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office says he has expanded accessibility by allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots in person before Election Day.

by Aria Jones and Sami Sparber Oct. 8, 20205 AM

MO and AZ filed amicus briefs in support of Texas. AL, AR, FL, IN, KS, LA, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV joined the motion of Missouri.

A motion to file AS AMICUS IN OPPOSITION for DC, states and territories was filed by DC, CA, CO, CT, DE, GU, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, OR, RI, VT, VA, VI, WA.

OH filed a motion to file as amicus is support of neither party.

There are a few more filings as well. The MAJORITY of the states have weighed in.

The Pennsylvania RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION makes the following claims:

I. Texas's Claims Do Not Meet the Exacting Standard Necessary for the Court to Exercise its Original Jurisdiction (8)

II. Texas Does Not Present a Viable Case and Controversy (13)

A. Texas lacks standing to bring this action (13)

B. This untimely action is moot (15)

III. Texas Fails to State a Constitutional Violation ... (19 )

A. Texas does not assert a meritorious Electors Clause claim (19)

B. Texas has no basis for any Equal Protection or Due Process Claim against Pennsylvania (23)

IV. Texas is Not Entitled to the Extraordinary Preliminary Injunction it Seeks (27)

A. Texas cannot meet the high standard for injunctive relief (27)

B. Texas's request to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters who reasonably relied upon the law at the time of the election does great damage to the public interest (30)