Literally the first argument is "b-b-but they're republicans reeeee!". The second one is whining that "it's too soon" and they need to prepare, even though they know for a fact that they'd have to defend their stance.

"Fourteen months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot with a signature that didn’t match the signature that they had on file, that would be discarded, if it was counted, that would be criminal fraud.

Fourteen months ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot beyond election day, it wouldn’t be counted, if it was, that would be fraud.

If you sent in a ballot without a postal date stamped on it, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was, that would be fraud. Or if you sent in a ballot where they couldn’t tell what the date was, if there was a smudge on the ink, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was counted, that would be fraud," Levin said.

"All of those ballots today count. They were all counted in Pennsylvania because of unconstitutional and illegal changes that were made by officials quote, unquote, 'officially,' by individuals in Pennsylvania." - Mark Levin

So their argument is basically 'Republicans cannot be trusted'.

That should work well on a court with a conservative majority. /s

This isn't PAs response. This is a filing of CARTER PHILLIPS, STUART GERSON, JOHN DANFORTH, CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, LOWELL WEICKER, ET AL., AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS.

An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural: amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case.

EDIT: MY BAD WRONG LINK!!!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9%20Texas%20Scotus%20Amici%20Brief-%20FINAL.pdf

"Your honor, REEEEE, don't be racist, let us cheat!"

kek.

Direct link? I don't see it on list

‘Amici’ sounds like an Italian restaurant

They are stacking the plaintiffs not even defending their positions lol

This isn't PA's response..

Yeah we broke the law, so what?

TL;DR - "We want to stay as far away from the merits of this case as humanly possible."

• PA State Attorney's Office

PA’s defense is trying to make this a political case than a constitutional case.

I could be wrong, but isn’t this the amicus filing for the battle ground states, like what the 18 states did originally with Texas?

I’m pretty sure this is a bunch of nobody has beens saying why SCOTUS shouldn’t take the case.

The most high profile person in their amicus was like the governor of Iowa 1970-1975. It was pretty pathetic.

This is not from PA, it's from some chicago lawyers filing an amici brief.

Here's some more complaining: "In addition, amici respectfully request leave to file the enclosed brief on 8½-by-11-inch paper. Because of the urgent timing of the motion and the logistics required to print this amici brief, amici respectfully request leave to file their brief on 8½-x-11-inch paper."

Im not sure how to respond

Just paste Amici everywhere

their #1 argument is: they are republicans and thats their motivation? thats their response?

win

LOFL - We aren't going to fight that what we did was in fact constitutional, but instead will scream that this is partisan. HAHAHAHAHAHA this is a great reply that spills in fact that they followed the constitution.

HAHA! My state of Pennsylvania is a shit show.

The Judiciary checks and balances the legislative, at both the state and federal level.

This is exactly how the system was designed. If you don’t have recourse to check and balance through the Courts then you have ZERO ability to stop a runaway government at any level.

What bulsh*t is this

So it's just them saying they are reeeeeeeeepublicans

Are they really trying to make the argument that a state suing another state somehow should be tried at the state level? Tell me exactly what state would this trial be conducted in?

This argument is beyond a joke.

It’s retarded.

"Makes a mockery?" LOL You know some blue hair troll wrote this steaming crap of garbage.

Your Honor...

I would like to respectfully submit the following...

-Ahem-

RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

In their filing they claim SCOTUS doesn't have original jurisdiction because this is an election matter and should be handled in State courts - they reference 3 U.S.C. § 5 in support... this is actually the 'safe harbor' argument... which SCOTUS has repeatedly dismissed in the past, including in Bush v Gore, not making a determination until Dec 12, four days after the 'safe harbor' date.

Here is the text:

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

What's most relevant, in my mind:

"by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors"

Actors within the four States violated the laws in carrying out the election, so this is invalidated.

"final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State"

Controversy is clearly not finally determined in any way, there is ongoing litigation, lawsuits, and SCOTUS cases.

This clause does not prevent one State from suing another with SCOTUS having original jurisdiction as the response claims.

What's more is that the Constitution DIRECTLY gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction for ANY case where a State is a party in Article III, Section 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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Nancy A. Temple who is listed on this case appears to be "Nancy Anne Temple", who was Arthur Anderson's in-house attorney prior to and during the Enron scandal that destroyed that company. Not who I would have chosen to work on my case.

If there is no consequence to breaking the law, there is no law at all.

Link to full doc?

As soon as i saw mockery i stopped...rEeeEeeEeeEe

Come on, this can't be it. They have NO argument?

So they are just arguing against SC jurisdiction. Weak.