[U, At Bottom] The People Of Texas Ought To Be Mortified -- By This Waste Of Their Remaining Public Goodwill -- And Financial Resources

I cannot even begin. . . to think of a way to frame this -- that isn't preposterous on its face. Clearly the Texas Governor owes Agent Orange some dark loyalty oath. [It is so far out in the field of fantasy, that it would insult Don Quixote, to associate his windmill-tilting. . . with this.]

The notion that the US Supreme Court would agree to sit as a trial court (as an arbiter of a putative dispute between the states), and find "some facts" -- in favor of Texas, that would allow that state to, in effect invalidate perhaps 20 million ballots cast, 99.99 per cent of them lawful, regular ballots -- IN OTHER STATES -- to give the Texas Governor the right to have his electoral college delegates (and all remaining others, in 16 other states) vote only for the re-seating of a man who lost by over seven million votes. . . is mind-numbing.

It. Will. Never. Happen. I understand the holdover occupant at 1600 Penn is asking all GOP Senators to sign on to some ludicrous "amici" brief (yet another loyalty oath!) urging the nation's highest court to invalidate all the already certified votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

I will not quote or link any of the proponents' churlish nonsense. I get that the man is a septuagenarian enfant terrible. I do. But I won't indulge his sad delusions -- not now -- not ever. Pack your crap, man. . . load that Trump Air jet for some roach-infested club of yours in Florida or Panama (or Moscow or North Korea, for that matter!) -- I don't care. Just. . . get out. You lost, and lost. . . bigly.

UPDATED -- late night: I will link the brief of amici just filed after 9 PM EST tonight, supporting the States of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia. It is spot on. [The late joining lawyer for 1600 Penn named Eastman argued TO THE SUPREMES. . . that "never in US history" had a candidate for president won both Florida and Ohio, but ultimately lost the White House. Mr. Eastman, allow me to introduce you to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. In 1960, he lost both Florida and Ohio, to Nixon -- but still quite clearly won the election. You could look it up. Sheesh -- with lawyers like these, who needs. . . enemies? Seriously, man. . . .]

Ahem. As the brief quite succintly, and cogently, states:

". . .[Texas, 16 States, and now. . . Trump, make] the unprecedented assertion, contrary to 230 years of history, that a presidential election dispute is, under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), a “controvers[y] between two or more States.” Brief in Support of Mot. For Leave to File Bill of Complaint, at 7-8. This jiggery-pokery is contradicted by the Electors Clause and 3 U.S.C. § 5. . . .

Each state’s power over its state’s “manner” includes its legislature’s power to “delegate[] the authority to run the election and to oversee election disputes to [its] Secretary of State. . . and to [its] state. . . courts.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 113-14 (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring, joined by Scalia and Thomas, JJ.). In particular, the exclusive “manner” includes statutorily-designated state court proceedings for post-election “protest[s]” and “[c]ontests” concerning, among other things, “canvassing” and “certification. . . .”

Federalism and the separation of powers protect our liberties. See Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 543 (2013). They “divide[] power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 187 (1992). Consistent with these principles, the Constitution and Congress have enabled each state to provide law and to adjudicate in its courts all controversies about the presidential election in that state. . . ."

Onward, grinning -- not even a retro-inspired unicorn cake could change that outcome. . . .

नमस्ते