President Trump’s legal adviser, presidential scholar John Eastman, said the U.S. Supreme Court will next review whether to take the case as a “court of first instance” after receiving briefs and objections from the four defendant states. The Supreme Court is already under pressure from the president, vice president, members of Congress and 18 states to hear the case.
In an interview with Newsmax TV on Thursday (Dec. 10), Eastman said pressure is mounting on the Supreme Court to take this step.
“I suspect that the Supreme Court will meet (on Friday) and decide whether to grant the Texas motion to file the original lawsuit.” He said, “And then they’ll face questions like President Trump’s motion to join the lawsuit.”
“If they grant Texas’ motion, they’ll set up a briefing schedule. They might even appoint a special master to investigate some of the potential fraud allegations.”
Eastman said the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over the dispute between the states in Texas v. Pennsylvania and will assume a special role as a “court of first instance.
That’s not a role they normally play,” he said. Typically, they end up appointing a trial judge as a special master to sort out the evidentiary issues.”
Eastman added that pressure has been mounting on the Supreme Court to take up the case. “There are now 18 states, there’s the president of the United States himself, and there’s the press exercising whatever discretion they have to follow it (the case), and those are very powerful.”
In addition, 106 Republican congressmen have asked the Supreme Court to approve the amicus brief they filed to support the Texas lawsuit.
Eastman added that Democrats and the Biden campaign should welcome legal review to legitimize the election and the next president.
“I think both sides should want to address this issue.” He said, “Half of the country thinks this election was stolen, including 30 percent of Democrats (who think so), according to (pollster) ‘Rasmussen.’ If that’s true, why would the Biden camp not want the courts to actually investigate the data and the violations of state law?”
“Why wouldn’t they want to get this straightened out? If they did win the election after a fair review, he could emerge as a more legitimate president.”
Eastman noted that the primary legal issue in the case is that states violated or ignored their own state election laws.
He said, “Under the federal Constitution, state legislatures have sole authority (over elections). Those actions by state election officials are clearly unconstitutional.”
Eastman also said the Democratic-led states would also come out against the Texas lawsuit, but that would only prompt the Supreme Court to finally take up the case.
He concluded, “It would emphasize to the Supreme Court how important this case is and how important and necessary it is to resolve it in a way that is nationally recognized as a fair decision.”
Recent Comments