Breaking news, the state of Texas sues four battleground states at the U.S. Supreme Court that could determine the outcome of the Presidential election. We'll talk about that and more today on Jay Sekulow Live. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. I've got it in my hands for those of you watching on Facebook, on YouTube. Here it is filed by the state of Texas and their attorney general, the state of Texas versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state of Georgia, the state of Michigan, and the state of Wisconsin. This lawsuit, again at the filing at the U.S. Supreme Court, focuses in on really three main counts. The Electors Clause being violated because the Electors Clause says that it's state legislators, the legislatures that have to make rules on the elections and changes to the election rules. There's an equal protection claim as well as a due process claim. And it closes with saying the prayer for relief is to declare that these states cannot set the current electors and that basically the legislature has to in each of these states appoint new electors. So this has been filed at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning by the state of Texas against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
What is key? Outcome determinative because if the Supreme Court were to agree with Texas, it could ultimately be outcome determinative if the state legislatures had to pick new electors. Right. What is at stake here, and this is why I think of all the case, this is the most significant case, to be clear, I mean there's no doubt about it, this is the most significant of the cases filed. And it's the most significant because it is, as Jordan just said, completely outcome determinative.
What does that mean? It means that if the court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors. This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And it is original jurisdiction, which means it doesn't start at the district court level, it starts at the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late. Actually, by the time it was lodged probably this morning, it was lodged. It's a very significant piece of legislation of all the cases all over the country.
In my mind, Andy, this is the one. There's no doubt about it, Jay, because this case now invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which means states can sue states for violations of law or claims that they have in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court does not have to accept the case.
It's discretionary. It depends on what four justices decide to do. But there is no more important case pending that has been filed all over the country than this case now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. Harry, it's interesting because it raises equal protection. It raises the usual, I would say the significant constitutional issues.
Absolutely, including Article II, Section 1. Basically, the state is entitled to select electors pursuant to statutory rules set by the state legislature. In all of these states, we have elections that are at variance with their own statutory rules. That's number one. But number two, in Pennsylvania in particular, the Secretary of State made an affirmative representation to the United States Supreme Court, suggesting that ballots would be segregated that were a challenge.
She failed to comply. You know, so this is again very significant because this comes on the day that electors are being acceded. And then next week on the 14th, they will vote.
So this all has to happen very quickly. But this is extremely significant because the state, Texas, has the jurisdiction to go right to the U.S. Supreme Court, part of the original jurisdiction of Article III of the U.S. and the Constitution, finally against these states. And again, it's a problem for the due process and equal protection of the citizens in the state of Texas. So that's why the violation is. We will answer your question about this when we get back. We're also going to stay live during the break.
So radio audience, obviously you're going to commercial if you're on Facebook, YouTube, or any other social media platform. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.
For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.
A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.
Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. So we have a good question that's coming in because they're wondering, hey, you've got this new Supreme Court case filed by the state of Texas against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state of Georgia, the state of Michigan, and the state of Wisconsin, filed by the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton. And in this, really, it's three major issues. One is that the electors clause has been violated because the state legislatures didn't make these rule changes the way they are supposed to under the Constitution. You've got due process claims, equal protections claims. But we have a good question that came in. So they said, American patriot on the YouTube super chat said, so what happens when one state refuses the elections electoral votes?
Now, Texas is getting out ahead of that, dad. They're saying, listen, it's not that we're rejecting your electoral votes, it's that you should be going about placing your electors, selecting your electors a different way because your elections were too tainted. Yeah, so let me read right from the actual complaint. So when you start these cases with original jurisdiction, so it's at the Supreme Court, it's not going to the lower courts, it's at the Supreme Court. Excuse me, lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President, any President, is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American experiment will founder.
A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election. Our country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed.
I'm going to read that again. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on the display at the National Archives. We ask the court to choose the former.
So here's what you have. You have a preemptive in a sense, I think, Jordan, that's a very accurate way of saying it, of getting ahead of what is a mess because you've got litigation going on in these four states right now. And Andy, this puts the case squarely, I mean, I'm having our team monitor the Supreme Court website because we could see a order in this any minute. Now, the order would probably be for additional briefing if they were interested in the case.
I would think so, yes. The Supreme Court- But the electors have been seated. Well, they were supposed to have been seated at noon Eastern time today, December 8th. Yeah. But they don't vote until the 14th.
That's correct. And the safe harbors, what they call the safe harbor. How significant do you see this?
This is very significant. Here's a litigation that has been filed by Texas against Pennsylvania and these other jurisdictions is an extremely important case because what it says is this. Remember, it's being brought on behalf of the citizens of Texas against the citizens of other jurisdictions of other states. And it's saying the way you went about choosing your electors violated the constitution of the United States in that you did not allow your legislatures to have their laws followed in the implementation of the election and the selection of those people who are the electors who elect the President of the United States. Remember, in the United States, we don't have a popular vote of the President. We vote for electors who in turn vote for the President on December 14th.
It'll be this year. And what this is saying is you violated equal protection of the law in the way you conducted, you states who are defendants in the way you conducted your elections, you diluted the electoral votes of the Texas people and you therefore violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. This is a critical case. I want to say something really. I applaud Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas who had the incredible courage to have his conviction to find the way to challenge these other states who didn't do it, who wouldn't do it the right way, who would not convene their legislatures. Ken Paxton is a standup guy. He did the right thing. He's going to take a lot of flak for it, I'm sure, but he did the right thing, Jay, in what he did in filing this lawsuit. Look, Ken Paxton is a patriot and you're right.
He'll get flak because that's the way the media is, but he did the right thing. I think what he said, he has a quote from John Adams, Terry, I thought was very interesting in the beginning of the brief. It says, that form of government, which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law is the best of republics. And that's really what you're talking about here. This election has been a mess. Absolutely. And we have a clear factual record and we can start, I think, with Wayne County, Michigan, because in Wayne County, Michigan, for instance, we have 173,000 votes, which cannot be tied to registered voters.
That's number one. Number two, the secretary of the state of Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, a former colleague of mine, blatantly violated Michigan law by flooding the state with absentee ballots to the tune of millions. That is contrary, directly contrary to Michigan statutory law. So Attorney General Paxton of Texas is on firm legal ground inciting factual irregularities in Michigan, in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, and in Georgia. I think this has been an incredible mess. And for those of you who are out there who are statisticians and love statistics, there was based on the early voting patterns in those four states, less than a one in a quadrillion possibility that Joe Biden could overtake President Trump. And it's even worse when you think about it in terms of all four states collectively.
So it's statistically impossible for Joe Biden to prevail. That is certainly what is alleged here. We got a question coming in on YouTube. And I think this is an important one too, because it's about the Pennsylvania case you were talking about yesterday.
Heather donated $5 to get this question moved up to the top. I've just logged on. Is anyone able to please tell me, has Pennsylvania responded to SCOTUS by the 9 a.m. deadline? They did respond.
Yeah. So have we gotten the... Will, do we have the response in the Mike Kelly case? I have the response printed out for you. I was going to bring it to you during the break.
During the break, we will have an analyzed... So Heather, they have responded. Yeah, they have responded. Well, look, if they didn't respond, that would have been a mess for them.
So they responded. We'll see. Is there anything else on the Supreme Court order? Folks, you're watching live TV and radio, where our teams are looking at the Supreme Court docket to determine what action has or has not been taken. It looks like there's been nothing filed yet.
So we're getting probably something this afternoon. Nothing filed by the Supreme Court. It has been filed. Pennsylvania has filed, but we don't have it filed by the Supreme Court yet.
What does this all mean? This means that we have an outcome determinative case at the Supreme Court of the United States. And, Than, as you said, we have a Congress that's ready if they have to, or at least is getting ready.
Yeah, Jordan's talked about this a number of times over the last few weeks. This is the case that is outcome determinative for this reason. The electoral votes, as you probably have seen them reported on the mainstream media, are 306 for Joe Biden and 232 for Donald Trump. But, Jay, the electoral votes represented in the four states that we're talking about today total 62.
So there's a couple different scenarios that could play out. One, if the Supreme Court were to rule for Texas, those 62 electoral votes could be discarded altogether. That would bring Joe Biden down to a total of 244. Or, if the state legislatures would then set another set of electors and those would go towards Donald Trump, that would actually put him over the top to 294.
But, Jay, let me just go finish the answer to the question you asked about if it ends up in Congress. If those electoral votes are just invalidated, what does that mean? It means that neither candidate gets to 270 and ultimately it would be the House of Representatives by a vote of state delegations, which there are more Republican delegations than Democrat delegations, that would choose the President and it would be the United States Senate by a vote that would choose the Vice President of the United States. That's how this could end up in Congress if the electoral votes from these four states were to be invalidated and not replaced by a separate slate of electors. Thean, how many more Republican delegations are there in the House than Democrat? Because it doesn't have to do with the fact that Democrats have more seats in the House, it's by state. So how many more is it? Yeah, it looks like there's going to be 27 delegations controlled by Republicans, Jordan, and I believe the number is only 22 for Democrats with one delegation tied. There are still a couple of races out, so those numbers actually aren't firm yet, Jordan, but I do believe Republicans are going to control at least 27 delegations in the House.
All right, there you go. I mean, so that gives you those two examples where this case could go if it went all the way, the Supreme Court agreed with Texas, the two different remedies. One is that no one got to 270, so it goes to the House, and the Republicans lead that, and then they would vote, and then I think they would support President Trump because they've got the Republican majority, and of course in the Senate, they would pick the Vice President if this was to occur, Pitts.
Now, the other option is that the state legislatures, they put in new electors, and those new electors put in Trump electors, and he gets to 294, which is well over 270, and he's got the Electoral College win. Now, this is all, again, saying, what if this case moves past these stage and ultimately the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Texas? I think it's important for you to understand, this single case is outcome-determinative.
It is outcome-determinative. This is the one. We said there was going to be one.
You're looking at it. All right, folks, we want you to support the work of the ACLJ. We're at a matching challenge campaign, ACLJ.org. Jordan will give you the details. Stay with us during the break in Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, wherever you're watching.
Share it with your friends. More information coming in. We're going to give it to you during the break. Radio audience, go to commercial break, but come back with us.
Jordan? That's right, folks. A matching challenge, double the impact to your donation as we are in the month of December. Of course, you'll realize how busy we are at the ACLJ. It's a great time to support the work that we do.
It's how we bring you this broadcast every day. Donate today and double your impact. Be part of our matching challenge at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. That's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.
For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.
A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.
Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. So again, we've got a second half hour coming up.
We've got a lot of people with phone calls, questions, but I do want to just kind of set the stage. There's two issues at play here right now. We are waiting on the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania did respond. They responded through, really, it was the Biden campaign's top attorney. And so he kind of has written this brief, Barry Burke. They've responded. It's a significant response, by the way, I would say. I would say if you look at a 40-page brief to the Supreme Court. Let's explain to people. This is the case you talked about with Congressman Mike Kelly yesterday.
Yeah, that's exactly it. Specific to Pennsylvania. This case only, the case that's captioned, Mike Kelly, U.S. Congressman versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is a case that deals specifically with what happened in Pennsylvania where they changed the rules, the laws by administrative action when the Constitution requires legislative action on this. It was serious enough that some of the justices, even though they said it was not timely, were concerned about the merits.
It's in the merits that you shouldn't just dismiss them. Now, that case was sent to the Supreme Court yesterday. You'll remember we reported that Justice Alito moved up the timing of the response. Originally, Pennsylvania was to respond tomorrow, that they had to respond today. They have now responded. So Pennsylvania's case now is joined at the Supreme Court of the United States. That means the brief for the petitioner, applicant has been filed in this case because it's an emergency request for injunctive relief, as well as the respondent. So in the Pennsylvania case, issue has been joined. In the case involving the state of Texas versus Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the bill of complaint, the injunction, the briefs in support have been filed by the state of Texas. And again, Ken Paxton did a fantastic job.
So did his team. And I want to thank all of them. They did a really great job on this. That has been filed. There has not been a order yet as to when they respond, when they don't respond, how they're going to respond. And this also has a request for an injunction. Why an injunction?
An injunction because you don't want to have a situation where electors are actually casting their ballot. Now that does not happen until the 14th of December. So the court in Bush versus Gore had argument on the, briefs were finished up around the 10th or 11th. Argument was done on the 12th. Decision came out on the 13th or thereby maybe a day off. And then the electors met. This, if accepted, and they have jurisdiction, I mean, it's original jurisdiction. What original jurisdiction means is that it's not a situation where I file a petition for a certiorari because I've gone from the district court to the court of appeals to the Supreme Court.
The case from Texas, different from Mike Kelly's case, went directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and lays out very clearly all of the legal issues that have to be addressed. Yeah, it's interesting. We have a similar question from Gsound on YouTube, super chatty, but also from Julie. So I think we can take Julie's call.
They'll answer both. Hey, Julie's calling from California online for, hey, Julie, welcome to Jay Sekio Live. Hi, Julie. Hi, Jordan and Jay. First of all, I'm definitely going to donate during the talent launch. Thanks.
Appreciate that. Now, two questions. Do you think other states will file similar lawsuits? And the second question is how is the ACLJ helping in these cases that go before the Supreme Court?
Let me answer the first question first. Look, I think the way other states will join will depend upon what the court issues. If the court issues a briefing order, you could see two things happen. You could see other states that are interested in this either intervene because they have the same harm. So they just file simply a motion, Andy, a motion to intervene.
Explain that quickly, then I'll get to the other one. An intervention simply means me too. I have the same harm. I have the same arguments.
The same thing happened to me. The same reasons that are Ken Paxton asserted on behalf of Texas apply to me. I want to intervene and become a party to this case and a state can do that. The Supreme Court would allow them to come in as an intervening state.
And there are many states that may very well feel the same way as Texas does. And they say that I want to intervene and be part of this litigation. The other way, of course, is they can file their own basically same lawsuit so that there's a way to do that. And the court then could join the cases together.
And then there's a third way. And we do a lot of these. An amicus brief could be filed, a friend of the court brief, Harry, that lays out the legal issues for those states. Absolutely. So with an amicus brief, the states would file in strong support of the argument and the argumentation that Ken Paxton of Texas has already written. But they may actually add additional friendly arguments as well. Yeah, an argument specific, Jordan, as to them.
That's right. If they want to, or they could just, or they could file amicus. It could be very similar because this is about equal protection due process and that you didn't follow the Constitution, which says the state legislatures have to do this.
These are very focused on that. But what was key is that the initial state had to make the filing and they had to do it right now. And Texas did it by the time they needed to do it.
And that was key to have Attorney General Paxton file this, the state of Texas file this. And because of that, you now have this active before the US Supreme Court. Deb, before we get to other calls, how quickly does the court have to, I mean, they know they have to act quickly. So what do you think happens here?
I'll give you a kind of a behind the scenes, what I think is probably happening. I don't know this obviously, but what happens is this came in late last night. It was docketed. Case number has been signed to it.
Will, you probably can get us the case number if you look online. It's then distributed to the entire court. It's actually bound, printed like we do our briefs.
I was looking for one. It's exactly the same way. You buy it, you bind them. They were printed last night, late at night.
Yeah, there you go. Jordan's got one in his hand. It's green. This one would happen to be, this one's an amicus brief, what Harry was talking about in a case that we filed in. They're printed, bound and go.
Now this one will be white because it's an application or a petition. It's distributed to the justices and then there'll be a consensus of what the justices want to do or the chief justice himself could put down a, if he so desires, a briefing schedule saying, we're going to hear this. You know, we want a brief. It'll be, but you said how quick and the caller was saying, you know, how quick do you have to react to this?
Could be hours. I mean, they could say we want a brief by five o'clock today or tomorrow by nine o'clock. That's what happened in the Pennsylvania case. Now, as far as the ACLJ involvement, don't forget, we've already intervened on behalf of the President in another Pennsylvania case. And of course, that's, we got to stay was granted in that particular case.
But election integrity is a big issue for the American Center for Law and Justice because of the constitutional issues. So we're heavily involved in drafting, writing. Harry's going to be putting up a piece I think today or later today or tomorrow on this whole, that we're waiting to see what the court telling us what they want to do. And if appropriate, we may file a brief in that case, in the text case, if appropriate.
We'll have to determine what the court actually asks for and whether we think we determined it's beneficial or not. Having said all of that, I think it's important for you to understand that this has been a monumental effort on behalf of, you're looking at four of the lawyers here that have worked on all of these things. I will tell you there are more than the four of us. And of course, then we have an entire team behind the glass that's making sure we come to you every single day.
Why do I say that? We're going into a break. Now, if you're on Facebook or Periscope, are we staying live?
We're going to stay live right through this. If you're on radio, you'll get a commercial to come back to us. But let me tell you something, folks, support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. If you enjoy this broadcast, if you appreciate the work we're doing here in the United States and around the globe, make that donation to Matching Challenge Month.
That's right. And it's how we bring you the broadcast too. Every single day that we're able to bring you this broadcast with all of these experts and the team, whether you're watching, whether you're listening, your support is how we are able to do that as well. So support the work of the ACLJ. Be part of our Matching Challenge. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We have a group of donors the entire month of December. They say we'll match all the donations that come through in the month of December. Donate today if you support our work, folks.
And this is critical work at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. For those of you watching, we'll stay with you.
For those of you listening, we'll be back in about a minute. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.
A $50 gift becomes 100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. This is Jordan Sekulow. Thank you for joining us for our second half hour. I want to reset the stage. Carolyn on YouTube, super chat.
I'm grateful ACLJ can do a lot of stuff at the same time. Thank you for tracking and updating us on all these issues. Let's set the stage, Andy, for what has happened. We know about Pennsylvania.
You talked about this yesterday. We're waiting there for court action, actually. But in Texas, this new filing, let's tell people, like as if some people who are just joining us right now, and for those of you who have been listening, just get through this for a second so that people who are just joining us understand that we're talking about this new case filed with the original jurisdiction at the U.S. Supreme Court, Andy. Okay, the case that has been filed is a case that, when I say original jurisdiction, and under the Constitution of the United States, a state can sue another state or multiple states going directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Does not have to go through lower federal courts.
Does not have to go through that path of certiorari. They have the right to go directly to the Supreme Court. The state of Texas, through its very excellent attorney general, Ken Paxton, has filed a suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, claiming that the electors in those states were chosen in unconstitutional means. In other words, that the election processes in each of those states deviated from what the Constitution provides.
And remember, what the Constitution provides is that the legislature sets the means, manner, and method of election. And what he is saying in this suit on behalf of Texas is that these other states that he is suing violated the Constitution of the United States by violating their own laws and not following what the legislative mandate of their jurisdictions was, and therefore that Texas has been harmed in that the other electors, the defendant electors, were elected by unconstitutional means. Texas followed the law, elected their electors by constitutional means, and therefore Texas is harmed. What he is asking, the relief that he's asking, and this is important, what is he asking the Supreme Court of the United States to do? He's asking, number one, to declare that the 2020 Presidential election violated the electors clause and the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, that that election was unconstitutional in those states, and that any electoral college votes cast by those electors in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin violate the Constitution and should not be counted.
And therefore, if that is the case and those electors are not counted, then neither side, neither Biden or Trump, get the electoral college votes that they need because they both need, the winner needs to have 270 to prevail. This matter would be decided by the House of Representatives. So Ken Paxton has filed a comprehensive suit. This is a critical suit, folks. This is an important piece of litigation. Forget all the other suits, excuse me, that have been filed in other jurisdictions for the moment. This is now before the Supreme Court of the United States. This court will determine one way or another what's going to happen in this election. Yeah, let's go, this takes, we'll start taking some of the phone calls.
We come back for the next break. I think then what's important to point out here is that one of the options is that if the electoral college votes aren't redistributed through new electors by state legislatures, Congress gets involved. And even though the House is controlled by Democrats, they don't control state delegations. In fact, Republicans have 27, looks like Democrats have 21, and two are tied, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Those delegations would choose the President.
That's absolutely right, Jordan. This is even a greater majority, so to speak, than it was last Congress. Last Congress, Republicans only controlled 26 delegations and there was one tie. Jordan, now they're going to control 27 and two of them are going to be tied. So essentially, that's a 27 to 21 delegation advantage.
If it goes to Congress, President Trump would certainly have the advantage. So that's one of the other options if the legislatures can't get their act together to do this, that this Texas lawsuit is seeking. Support our work at ACLJ.org.
We will be right back with more. Take in your phone calls as well on JCECioLive. We'll stay with you through the break.
Yep. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.
For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.
A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.
Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.
Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. And welcome back to JCAC Live. We're going to start taking your phone calls now. We're monitoring everything too to see what's coming in. It's important too because we've got a big audience now growing on YouTube that we started the last few weeks. And we want to make sure that if you're watching on YouTube, you click that subscribe button so you know you're subscribed to the official ACLJ YouTube page. But you also click the bell to the right. If you're watching on YouTube, you know what I'm talking about. That will then let you get notifications like the show is going live so that you'll know each day when JCAC Live is going live. So you want to do that. It's just like if you're on Facebook, a lot of you who like our page on Facebook, you also get the notifications that our show is going live. So same for those of you who are watching on YouTube as well. And I want to get right to phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.
People been hanging on the line. Jerry in Rhode Island online too. Hey, Jerry, welcome to JCAC Live.
Hey, team. Jerry and Mr. Akama have really laid it out well, but the only question I have left is what happens to December 14th and is it going to be produced by the Supreme Court, whether it's a stay or the outcome determinant? How is December 14th? Well, look, I think December 14th is a critical date. Now, there's some lawyers that say that that could even be moved. And Harry, you're nodding. What is your thought on that?
And I want to ask Andy. Well, that is precisely the argument that Ken Paxton makes in his brief that the Supreme Court has the power because the failure, for instance, to have a full-blooded hearing, assuming the validity of the factual claims and the legal claims that are made by the state of Texas would mean that we have an illegitimate election. And so the Supreme Court, this would be extraordinary, and I'm not forecasting it, but they could in fact delay the December the 14th deadline. And there's an argument, one might argue, in favor of that because the errors that are outlined in this litigation are errors of the defendant state's own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.
And you cannot forget that. I mean, this is not coming out of the air. This is not some technical violation. There's allegations that there was a violation of the protection clause of due process, that violation of the electors clause, a violation of the elections clause. And there's a great question coming in in Super Chat from Bob on YouTube and says, will the Supreme Court just declare state electors void or could they do something else?
Andy, they have a lot of things they could do. They could say it goes back to the state legislature to make the determination. That would be the most likely outcome.
That's correct. The Supreme Court of the United States. They're not going to say this binds the winner or trumps the winner. That's not what they're going to do.
No, I don't think that. That's not going to happen in this case. They've got tremendous options, that court. First of all, they cannot take the case, as Jordan pointed out.
It's discretionary. They can say, I'm sorry, we're not interested in this litigation. And then it'll be a mess and I don't know what's going to happen. But they could do a lot of things. They could say that the electors in the states that are being challenged by the state of Texas were illegally selected by their jurisdictions. Go back and select them again, legislatures of those states and void that.
Or they could say, well, they're void. We don't have to have a reelection. Let the House of Representatives make the decision. So there's a lot of things that the Supreme Court could do. But I think that the Constitution trumps the statute.
And I think that the December 14th, yes, that's set by 3 USC 1 as the date when the electors are supposed to meet and elect. But I don't know whether the Supreme Court is going to say the Constitution has got to trump that. As Kim Paxton said, the Constitution is sacred. It's not a piece of parchment hanging in the National Archives.
I take that statement very, very seriously and the Supreme Court will too. And of course, there's two very important runoff elections going on January 5th for Georgia to determine the outcome of who is in control of the United States Senate. Frank in Florida on Line 5 has got a question about that as well. Hey, Frank, welcome to JCEC, you're live. Hi, Frank.
Hi, Jim, and thank you for taking my phone call. Listen, the question is geared towards one Mr. O'Connell about Georgia. I read in the news that Senator Perdue did not show up for the Ossoff-Perdue debate.
Was there a reason why? He, go ahead, you can talk any I know to. Well, I mean, you can't out stink a skunk. And I think that's what David Perdue just said. I am not going to humiliate myself by going against a person who's never had a job in his life, who's a Marxist, who is a communist, who went to the most liberal of schools, who went to the London School of Economics, never got a degree, by the way.
He attended it just like I walked through Harvard, let's say. And so I think Senator Perdue is saying, I'm not going to belittle myself by dealing with John Ossoff, who is a nothing. Yeah, I will say this though, that also John Ossoff had a, they did have a previous debate and it was really, really nasty and personal. He was just making up personal attacks.
It was all personal ad hominem attacks. And when you get that, you know what you say, if I'm David Perdue's advisor, don't get into the trough. Don't do that. Just don't get into the mud. Don't get into the muck. Just run your campaign. I completely understand why Perdue did that.
You wrestle with a pig, you're going to get mud on you too. I mean, you know, and that's the issue there. So it's a political calculation.
That was all that was. But yet Kelly Loeffler decides she wanted to debate, she wanted to bring forward Reverend Warnock so that more people actually saw that and Fox was actually covered, you know, covered the debate so you could watch that nationally. She wanted people to see Warnock. So she made a different political calculation about him, but they didn't have that same kind of like personal attack.
It was more about ideal ideology. Yeah. So then I was going to ask you about that one because obviously people need to understand that this local Senate race for Georgia is very much a national race. No doubt about it.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are going to pour in. And look, I just want to underscore, I mean, to me, both of these decisions by Senator Perdue and Senator Loeffler make a lot of sense because these two races were not the same, Jay. Essentially, Perdue and Ossoff were head to head. There was one other candidate that took a couple of percentage points that kept both under 50%. But Senator Perdue beat John Ossoff by 2%. I mean, I think he thinks that he's in a good position heading to the runoff.
Jay, there were a slew of candidates in the special election on the other side and nobody got more than the mid 30s percentage. So I think Senator Loeffler thought, I do need another opportunity to go and debate. I think if I were advising both of those candidates, I would have told Senator Perdue not to debate. And I would have told Senator Loeffler to debate.
Like Jordan said, it's a tactical decision. But look, Jay, hundreds of millions of dollars are going to pour into Georgia. It is absolutely a national election.
And unless there's a change in the Presidential outcome, Jay, it will determine control of the Senate as well. As we are awaiting some action at the Supreme Court, I want to take some of the people who've been on hold the longest, Kay in North Carolina on Line 3. Hey, Kay, welcome to Jay Sekio Live. Hello. Hello there. This is Kay in South Carolina. But thank you anyway.
Thank y'all for everything you do. My question is this. If is it too early for us? Or should we be contacting our US senators to ask them to get on board with Mo Brooks, who's going to be leading the charge as far as if this goes to the house? And also in light of a caller that called in earlier, should we contact our attorney generals and ask them to join the Texas suit?
You're in South Carolina? Yes. I think Attorney General Wilson is already reviewing it. So, you know, I would let him do the review process. Well, Jordan, you know the politics better than I do. I think just let's see if the Supreme Court takes it. If the Supreme Court takes it, yeah, I think you can all get on the phone with your state attorney generals and say, hey, you need to do something like Texas, whether you enjoy the case, whether you file a because brief, whether you intervene, because again, we would know that if the court takes the case. The other question about Congress, Dan, that is a unique move.
It happens every election where a congressman from the house tries to assert that, hey, we can actually choose the electors and they would need a Senate partner. I don't think we're at that point yet because we have this case now pending before the Supreme Court as of this moment. Right. Now that could change tomorrow. But as of this afternoon. Yeah. Yeah. We're not at that point yet, Jordan, but it has happened before the House of Representatives has had to decide a Presidential election before.
It's not like it's something that comes out of thin air. The Constitution specifically spells out the process. And I believe that Congressman Mo Brooks is preparing for that, but just for a point of clarity to the caller, should we get to that point?
We're not there yet, but should we get to that point? The House of Representatives would be able to choose by state delegation from the top three vote getters from electoral votes. Now, only two candidates got electoral votes. So you'd be talking about Joe Biden and Donald Trump. And then the United States Senate would be picking the vice President based on the top two vote getters for vice President. So that would again be Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. So that's the division of how the House and the Senate would handle that.
Certainly if it came to that, you would want to contact both the House and the Senate, but you would just want to understand the House would be handling the Presidential election and the Senate would be handling the vice Presidential pick. Let me tell you something else I just thought of. If in fact the court issues a briefing schedule, it is possible that the American Center for Law and Justice can file a brief on behalf of its members. And we would have to move very quickly. We'd have to send out an email to all of our members saying, sign up. So we'd have that.
And you would literally be a number of people, I'm sure we would have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, would be part of history. Now that's if the Supreme Court grants a briefing schedule. We don't know that yet. The complaint, the bill of complaint has been filed, but we will see I think sometime today. All right. Don't forget, support the work of the ACLJ. Jordan's gonna let you know how.
That's right. ACLJ.org. It's a matching challenge month in December. You double the impact of your donation to ACLJ.org. If you're watching on YouTube right now, because we've just opened that up in the last few weeks, I encourage you right now, subscribe. It's right there, the button.
Subscribe to the official ACLJ page. Click the bell. If you're watching on YouTube, you understand what I mean. Then you'll get the notifications about us from when we're live. So if we have to come back live later today about the Supreme Court, you will know. So subscribe and click the bell on YouTube. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.
Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.
It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.
For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.
A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.
Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to JCECCO Live. So again, I want to start getting through more of the phone calls.
I need to say something to our production team. Look, there's a possibility that orders could be coming out in like the next, just because of the way the Supreme Court works, in the next 15 minutes, 20 minutes, could be less. So let's have somebody monitoring the Supreme Court's website. And if we're still close to on the air, we'll stay on for that few minutes. If not, we'll come back if we stay on. And that means where we are on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, places like that. Of course, you're listening on radio. You'll need to find us that way to continue the broadcast that way. I want to get to some of the phone calls though, because we've been holding on the line. Bill in Wyoming on Line 6. Hey Bill, welcome to JCECCO Live. All right, thanks for your, first of all, let me say thanks for the work that you've been doing.
That's why I try and send any spare pennies that I've got to you. Thanks. Okay, I'm going to try and make sense of my question to you, because if I could get you, Mr. Sekulow, to actually reiterate a statement that you said concerning Gore v. Bush, the fact that, yeah, this is where we have the protection of the Constitution, but we should not, you added a but in the fact that we should never have to worry about going to the Supreme Court to make a technical election for the President.
Could you go ahead? Yeah, I mean, it's just, you know, you want fair elections that are elections that are determinative of the night of the election or shortly thereafter if you've got to count for a few days. You don't, it's not great that you have to run up to the Supreme Court now twice in four, how many cycles would that be?
20 years. So basically five cycles that you've gone now to the Supreme Court twice. I'm glad the Supreme Court's there to resolve it. I'm glad our founders had the insight and foresight to understand how we do this, that there has to be a remedy here.
But, you know, it's not anybody's pleasure, Andy, that we're having to run, you know, that cases are having to be filed at the Supreme Court. No, the idea was that the people elect electors, if that's what the state decides to do, and the electors then choose the President. But the premise is, as John Adams says, and this is quoted by Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law is the best of republics. In other words, follow the law in your state legislature. The Constitution of the United States says that the legislatures of the states will set the manner, means, and method of electing electors to they who will choose the President. That did not happen according to the allegations of the lawsuit in Texas, in Pennsylvania, in Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and therefore we have to resort to the Supreme Court. As Jay said, thank God that the founders of the Constitution and the republic, and it is a constitutional republic if we can keep it, as Ben Franklin said, had the foresight to create a tribunal, the Supreme Court to decide these kinds of things.
It is unfortunate that we have to occasionally resort to that entity to decide our disputes and can't do it through the electoral process, but both ultimately will work. I have faith in that. Alright, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Art in Florida on Live 5. Hey Art, welcome to Jay Sekio Live.
Thank you gentlemen. My question is, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of A.G. Paxton's suit, does that have a positive impact on the Georgia Senate race, in that Georgia would have been found to be acting unconstitutionally, and therefore... No. It doesn't. It has no impact whatsoever on the Senate race or down-ticket races. It's strictly for President and Vice President. That's what the electors are about. That's what the electors are.
Go ahead, Jordan. Yeah, what would you challenge the electors? Electors are for President, Vice President. They're not about the Senate races or other races. You know, unfortunately, I understand why you would imagine that if these claims happen now in Georgia, the reason why the lawsuit is against Georgia is because they're state officials, they're Republican. Of these states, that's the one state that Texas has sued that is a Republican-controlled state, and it said that you were just as bad in Georgia Secretary of State and Governor as they were in Pennsylvania, as they were in Michigan, and as they were in Wisconsin.
You handle this just as poorly. And so I understand the concern, but this is about the Presidential election. The runoffs January 5th will determine the makeup of the U.S. Senate. I know we've got to hit another call here, but I got a real quick question, Harry. I'm thinking about if we were to file an amicus brief, the ACLJ, I think it would just focus on, I think, the equal protection challenge. What do you think? Where do the electors call it?
I would like one or the two. What do you think? Well, I think you might focus on both, in part because there's a clear and unmistakable constitutional argument embedded in both of those claims, and you would not focus on the factual claims supporting rampant lawlessness, which is included in AG Paxton's, essentially it's a complaint. Yep. It is, yeah, it's a bill of complaint. So it's not a certiorari petition, it's a bill of complaint. All right.
All right. We could go back to the phones, 1-800-684-3110. This is interesting. Pat, New Jersey, because people have been asked, does it go to one justice, like the Pennsylvania case, or what happens in the case? They say, hey, Pat, welcome to JCAC Live. In the case- Pat's asking a question. No, Pat, go ahead. I'm sorry. Hi, hi.
Thanks for taking my call. My question is, who on the Supreme Court decides? Is it Roberts alone that decides to take the case, or is it a majority of the justices that get a say in whether they think this is a valid case or not? So unlike the situation where Justice Alito was the circuit justice for the Third Circuit, which included Pennsylvania, and could issue the initial administrative stay, which he did in our case and what he did in another, in this Congressman Kelly's case, and then it refers to the court, this is a bill of complaint.
You would have to have five justices agree to accept the bill. Now, could Chief Justice Roberts issue an administrative order pending this? Of course, he's the Chief Justice of the United, not just the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He is the Chief Justice of the United States.
So yes, he could issue an order, but it wouldn't be, the determination as to who is going to take the case rests with the nine justices. And you say it takes five. This is not like the other cases where it's four.
No. So this is, well, it would take four to grant, yes, four to grant and five to, you know, that is a good question. It's not a petition for certiorari. So I am not sure if it's a four, for petitions for certiorari, four justices, it's the rule of four.
Is there a rule of five here? I don't know. We'll find that out. Yeah, we'll find that out again.
I mean, let me tell me these bill of complaints in election cases that have been in our history. One, this one. Not many. So we try to get, we don't have time for more calls today. We're going to try to stay out a little bit longer just to see if the Supreme Court takes any action right around. We're working right now. Is there any orders, Will?
Nothing has come out. Okay. So I think we'll come back if we need to come back. And remember, if you're on YouTube and you subscribe and you click that bell, you'll get a notification if we come back.
Facebook, you know the same thing if you're watching on Facebook. If you, again, follow us there and then you get notifications, you'll know when we come back as well. We've got a team watching, any action on the Supreme Court. So what is key, what is very key is that I don't think that they went on the Pennsylvania case. It's tough to not see some action by later today.
And then this one as well. I mean, maybe tomorrow at the latest, at the latest, I would think. But again, we'll bring it to you as soon as we know through all the social media channels that we are on. Support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org Matching Challenge, month of December. Again, it's a great time to support our work and this broadcast. Donate today at ACLJ.org.
I think we may be talking to you later. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes 100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-01-17 13:20:31 / 2024-01-17 13:44:24 / 24
