Breaking: Justice Alito Orders Response in PA Case

This is Jay Sekulow.

Breaking News. Justice Alito orders a response in the Pennsylvania case. 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, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the broadcast. And we start with kind of a breaking news announcement, and that is Justice Samuel Alito, who is the justice in charge of the Third Circuit. Now, why that's significant is a case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly challenging some of the election irregularities that took place in, at least have been alleged to take place in Pennsylvania, and that's been pursuant to a lawsuit that he filed.

They took an application up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and originally the response date for the state of Pennsylvania, per the order of Justice Alito, I'm reading it right here, and this is from the Supreme Court docket. It's docket number 20A98, and when you've got stays or emergency proceedings, that's why you see that 20, and you'll see the A. These are applications for stays.

I've done a lot of them. That's what this is. And what it says here is that the response to the application requested by Justice Alito is now due Tuesday, December 8th by 9 a.m. And that was an update from a previous entry, which had the date on which the application response was due by the state of Pennsylvania, or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was originally on Wednesday. Why is that significant? Because on Tuesday afternoon, what happens is, and it's at noon, the electors are seated. So what Justice Alito is saying is he wants Andy an order or at least a response before anyone is seated so he can then determine how he's going to deal with this issue since it's coming out of the circuit he's in charge of. Each justice is given a particular circuit to be in charge of, and he's out of his home state. It's New Jersey, so that's in the Third Circuit.

That's right there. But that's why he moved it up. Yes, that's exactly why he moved it up. He wanted to give himself more time before the electors met in order to make a decision as to what he's going to do in the case. And by moving up the response date from the state from Wednesday to Tuesday at, and it's significant, Tuesday, December 8, 9 a.m., that gives him three hours between then and when the electors meet at noon on that day to make a decision as to whether or not he may, I don't know, I don't predict what the Supreme Court justices will do, but he may grant a stay of the seating of the electors.

Yeah, Harry, the interesting aspect of this, the case is captioned, Mike Kelly, U.S. Congressman, and then some other individuals versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, General Assembly, and also Thomas Wolf, the Governor, and Kathy Bockvar, who of course is the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They have filed an emergency application for a writ of injunction pending the filing and disposition of the certiorari petition, so they are asking for everything, like we got in the Vance case for the President, that everything stays in place, a stay. Let's explain quickly what that stay means, what a stay means. Well, essentially, a stay prevents the parties, in this particular case, the parties associated with the government of Pennsylvania from moving forward and basically allowing the electors of the state of Pennsylvania to vote in favor of the so-called certified candidate, who in this case would be Joe Biden. I think it is clear on the face that the state of Pennsylvania violated the United States Constitution by essentially changing the rules for electing the electors without the consent of the state legislature, and that is called forth in the United States Constitution. So, on its face, there is a plausible claim, but the real issue right now is timing.

Yeah, so timing is the key issue. We're going to get into what all of that means. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said, no, we're not going to deal with this case, that there was not violations, although a couple of the justices expressed some serious concern. Having said that, it is now resting at the Supreme Court of the United States. I want to ask you to do something that we're in our matching challenge campaign here at the ACLJ. Your support of the ACLJ makes a huge difference, and any amount you donate this month, we get a matching gift for. This is our most important month of the year, financially, for the American Center for Law and Justice. So if you can go to ACLJ.org and donate any amount, we appreciate that.

It's doubled. ACLJ.org. 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. 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 have 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. 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. All right, if you're just joining us, there's a bit of breaking news, and that is Justice Samuel Alito, the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, has issued an order. He issued an initial order. A case was brought by Congressman Mike Kelly challenging the election certification issues that revolved around the situation in Pennsylvania where they, where the Governor and the Secretary of the Commonwealth extended dates and made various changes without legislative support. And that case was litigated at the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

They ruled against Congressman Kelly. He took an application for basically an emergency, well not basically, it's an emergency application for a ribbon junction to stop this, basically the seating of electors while the case is determined. Originally the brief was due from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Wednesday, but last night, late last night, Justice Alito issued an order saying, nope, I want that brief tomorrow at 9 a.m. That is significant.

I'm going to let Andy go over again why that is significant that that has been changed. The significance is the fact that originally the brief or the response of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have been due on Wednesday. Wednesday would have been after the date that the electors met and the slate of electors for the presumptive Presidential candidate would have been cast and then that's the end of it. So what Justice Alito has done is said, okay, look, I want a response to the petition that Congressman Kelly filed from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not on Wednesday and not and after the electors have met, but before that was specifically by 9 a.m. on Tuesday, December 8th, which will give the Supreme Court three hours between the time it receives the response, 9 a.m. tomorrow and 12 a.m. when the electors meet to make a decision as to whether or not, in my view, stay the meeting of the electors and the casting of that slate as the Biden slate. Yeah, well, here's what it means for Pennsylvania. Now, to be clear, there's other challenges in other states. Harry, the two issues that have been raised in Mike Kelly's case is, number one, do the elections and the elector clauses, the elections clause and the elector clauses of the Constitution permit Pennsylvania to violate its state Constitution's restrictions on its lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections? Not a lot of people know the election clauses and the elector clauses, but people are becoming experts in it in the last couple of weeks, that's for sure. But that's the straight question of whether the states can arbitrarily, through not the legislative process, which is what's required, but rather through administrative action of, here, the secretary of the Commonwealth, change the actual law.

Absolutely. So one of the key issues here is that the change in the voting process in the state of Pennsylvania was not enacted via statutory changes through the state legislature. They are the sole body empowered by the United States Constitution to change the rules. Nonetheless, the governor and the secretary of the state took it upon themselves to say, this is what is best for the citizens of Pennsylvania. There is no legal or factual foundation for such a change, and I think it is clear on its face, speaking as a former law professor, that the governor and the secretary of state had the authority. They did not have such authority to change the rules. Nonetheless, they did it. Nonetheless, they promised the citizens of Pennsylvania, hey, you can vote in violation effectively of the United States Constitution. And the key question now is whether or not the Supreme Court will claw back the decision by the executive branch.

So, Thanh, let me ask you this. You know Congressman Mike Kelly. He brought this action, along with others, individuals in the state, electors, and I think also citizen voters.

What is your sense of this, and what have you heard about this? I mean, it was a case that was not getting a lot of attention until right now. Well, first of all, I think people need to understand who Mike Kelly is, good friend of our organization, a champion for life in so many issues, limited government and otherwise. He's a thoughtful man, Jay, and someone who has approached this in a very reasonable fashion. I think he's a good example of federal officials who have a number of concerns, actually, on how these elections were run inside their own states.

Now, they understand that as a federal official, they don't get to set those rules, but the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution, and then state statute all do govern them. And in order to make as significant changes as were made this year, that process has to be followed. In this case, the dramatic expansion of the mail-in program, I know that that is a terrific concern to Congressman Kelly, and I think he thinks it led directly to some of the problems that we're seeing. And Jay, I don't think there's any doubt that pretty much everyone on all sides of this issue sees the move by Justice Alito as a direct sign that he does want the court to be able to hear from both sides and actually weigh in to provide some certainty. But I just wanted to give that color on Congressman Mike Kelly. This is not someone who just, you know, threw this together and filed a suit. This is someone who looks at the law, looks at the statute, looks at the governing constitution, and says, did it happen properly?

Was this a lawful election? All right, but let's take a phone call. We normally don't do it this early, but this is right on point. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Patricia's calling from Georgia. Patricia, you're on the air. Hello. How are y'all today? We're great.

Go ahead. I'd like to know, of all of these states that have so much, at least questionable election votes, at the end of the day, if they certify the elections inside of each state, is there anything we can actually do in the Supreme Court to get our vote counted and make sure that they're right? Well, this is exactly what we're talking about today. So, Congressman Kelly, which only involves Pennsylvania, is one case. There is potentially the ability of various states to file what's called, Harry, original jurisdiction. That is, let's say, you know, State 1 or State A sues States B, C, D, and E because of election irregularities. They do that because they allege that if there were election irregularities, it dilutes the votes of their constituents, their citizens of their state. So, when you have a situation like that, a state can file against another state for what's called original jurisdiction, and it goes directly to the Supreme Court.

Absolutely. So, if there are election irregularities in even one state, arguably that dilutes the votes of citizens in each and every other state. In this particular case, there are a significant number of cases pending involving an outcome determinative number of electors, which could affect the outcome of the election. So, given these election irregularities in Pennsylvania and alleged irregularities in Georgia, in Michigan, in Arizona, and in Nevada, and possibly even in Wisconsin, there is a basis for each and every other state in the United States to go to the United States Supreme Court and say, look at what has happened in all these other states because what has happened with respect to these alleged election irregularities, that affects the power or the influence of the vote of our citizens. In other words, the issue is vote dilution in, let's say, North Carolina or South Carolina or Florida. So, Andy, let's again recast this as we get ready to take a break because we've got a lot of people that are joining us on our radio broadcasts.

By the way, if you're on any of our social media platforms, by the way, we've added Rumble to our social media platform, so I don't know if they do carry it live, but we will have videos up there, so that's another one you should definitely put in your list of places to find out about the ACLJ. But Andy, just as we get ready to go to a break, because I think this is important for people to understand, the fact is that the changing of a day doesn't seem that significant, except to those of us that follow the Supreme Court, this is really significant. It's very significant because what Justice Alito is saying is that I don't want a response after the electors have met and the slate of electors has been seated. I want to hear from the state of Pennsylvania in response to the petition that Congressman Kelly, and I'm holding it right here, emergency application for rid of injunction, that he has filed. I want the response of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Governor, the Secretary of State, to be filed with the Supreme Court tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, which gives us, the Supreme Court that is, three hours in which to determine whether or not to grant an injunction and to prevent the seating of those Pennsylvania electors. Now, I'm not going to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. Justice Alito is one of nine members of the Supreme Court. He is the circuit justice for the Third Circuit, which is why he has the responsibility for doing this. And so that's exactly what he's doing.

He is giving the court time in order to determine whether or not to act and to intervene in the seating of these electors from Pennsylvania. I want to follow up on this, so I'll tell you what we're going to do. During the radio, you've got commercial breaks, but we'll recap some of this for you when you come back for our radio audience. If you're on Facebook or Periscope or if you're on YouTube, stay there, share this with your friends. We're going to give you some more, following up exactly on what Amy was talking about, because I really do think it's that important that we get into this. So stay with us on this as we go into a break. And let me encourage you, there are literally 20,000 or more of you on our social media platforms right now, not including the millions that listen by radio.

Share it with your friends right now and get more people involved in this conversation. Also, support the work of the ACLJ 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, Planned 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.

Welcome back to the broadcast. If you're just joining us, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Sam Alito, who is the Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. What that means is each justice is, we have circuit courts for courts of appeals for multiple states. So you've got the 11th, which takes care of Alabama and Florida, Georgia.

So this is how it's set up. In this particular situation, Justice Alito, each justice of the Supreme Court is assigned a circuit to be the supervising judge, the circuit justice. He is the circuit justice of the Third Circuit. What that means is something coming out of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, that goes to Justice Alito if it's coming out on an emergency basis. Congressman Mike Kelly filed a lawsuit with challenging the changes that were made by the Commonwealth Secretary to the election laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He lost at the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He then took an emergency application for writ of injunction pending the file and disposition of a petition for certiorari. In his brief, he said, the power delegated to the Pennsylvania General Assembly by the U.S. Constitution to determine the manner of holding federal elections and selecting Presidential electors is constrained by restrictions imposed by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

And then it lays out those arguments. Those were modified. Now the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said that was okay. Went to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was filed. I'm holding the docket sheet. To be clear, this is the Supreme Court's docket sheet. So this is from their website. An application was filed on December 3rd.

The application number is 2898. It's an application for injunctive relief of the seating of the electors. A response to the application was requested by Justice Alito originally for Wednesday. It was moved to Tuesday, December 8th and has to be in by 9 a.m. Why is that significant? Because at 12 o'clock Eastern Daylight Eastern Time, so Eastern Daylight Time, Eastern Standard Time, the electors for all of the states are seated.

So at 12 noon Eastern, all of the electors are seated. Justice Alito says he wants a brief, a response from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by 9 a.m. And he laid out again what that means. That means he wants to give the Supreme Court about three hours to determine whether or not to grant the injunctive relief that Congressman Kelly asked for in his case in Pennsylvania and to determine whether or not in that three hour period the Supreme Court is going to basically enjoin, prevent, stop the seating of the Pennsylvania electors.

That's exactly what he's trying to do. If he had waited till Wednesday, it would have been too late because they would have been seated at noon or shortly thereafter on Tuesday. So he is simply giving the court three hours more to make a determination as to whether or not there is basis, a basis for an injunction to be issued to prevent the Pennsylvania electors from being seated because of all the reasons, all the reasons that he stated in a very well, let me just say application for writ of injunction that was filed on December the 3rd, Jay.

Very interesting comment coming in from Tina on Facebook. She says, what if the state, it was the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is still a state, doesn't meet the deadline in Justice Alito's order, Harry? They will, by the way. Well, I think that move would be against their own interest. My own intuition would be that then the court would, would actually enjoin the seating of the electors. But it's also very, very important, Jay, to go back to the original decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which issued an opinion on November the 25th, preliminarily enjoining the respondent, that is the state and the executive branch from taking further steps to certify the results of the November the 3rd, 2020 election. The point I'm making there is this is not a brand new case, if you will, that is going to be heard before the United States Supreme Court. We already have the four corners, if you will, of a potential decision enjoining the seating of the electors because there wasn't a lower court decision basically enjoining the state from certifying, at least on a preliminary basis. Now, to be fair, of course, then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order on November the 28th, 2020, overturning or vacating the Commonwealth Court's decision. But I think there's enough evidence on the record, including the record from the United States Constitution, which could provide the basis for the Supreme Court for enjoining the seating of the Pennsylvania electors. Yeah, so I tend to think Harry's analysis is completely correct.

Now, this is the dynamic here, so this is a very fast-moving dynamic. There may be other actions taken at the Supreme Court in the next couple of hours. We're not sure of that yet. We'll let you know if it does, and we may come back to you if it does, in fact, happen.

We'll certainly discuss it tomorrow if it does. But what's happening is that some of these cases are starting to mature. But again, for those of you who do not know Congressman Mike Kelly, who's been a friend of the ACLJ's for a long time, he's signed a lot of our briefs to the Supreme Court of the United States then. Let's talk about him. This guy's been a champion for life.

Yeah, no doubt about it. Champion for life, champion for limited government, small business owner, Jay, so someone who appreciates the reduction in taxes that we saw over the last four years. And I think the other thing that's important here is he understands the authority that state legislatures have here. Harry talked about both Article II and the 12th Amendment. Clearly, state legislatures have authority here. And one of the central things that Congressman Kelly is saying is that when they acted in 2019 to delegate some of this power to the executive and then it was eventually used, they did it in violation of the state's Constitution. They granted more authority than was available to them.

So, Jay, again, just going back to the comments I made earlier, it's a thoughtful analysis that I think many people are jumping past. They're jumping right to, well, the state legislature just has to invalidate. Well, I mean, that's certainly a role they could play. But they also had an ability to delegate some of this authority. And in the view of Congressman Kelly, he thinks they did it in violation of the state Constitution.

You know, Andy, I don't want to predict, because I think it's a dangerous thing to predict, but I will predict this. It's got the interest of at least Justice Alito. I would say it definitely has Justice Alito's interest. I would say… Because this is the same justice that issued the stay in the other part of the Pennsylvania case, which was the extending of the days in which the mail-in ballots could come in that we were involved in.

Right, right. So, Justice Alito has kind of shown his inclination with respect to what I think he's going to do in the case. There's only one other justice that I'm not going to name who in my mind is going to be with him on this for absolute sure, for absolute sure.

And there should be others who follow along as well. And I don't like to predict what justices will do. I don't like to predict what juries will do. I've had too many jury trials come back, much different than what I expected them to be.

Most of them did convict, however, because I was a good prosecutor. At any rate, I think that this is going to be a very good… it's a good sign, in my view. It's a very good sign for the Constitution. Well, you know it's a sign of… it's a sign the ball game's still in play. Remember Jordan said, don't walk off the field while the game's still… the clock's still running?

Don't walk off the field while the clock's still running, that's what he's… all right, we're out of time for the first half hour, but we are here for another half hour. If you don't get this broadcast for a full hour, which you should, but if you don't, you can get it easy. Go over to Facebook, go over to YouTube, go over to Periscope, go over to ACLJ.org. I'm leaving things out, I'm sure, but there's other platforms, too, to get the full hour of this broadcast. And don't forget, you're getting an analysis here, you're not going to get anywhere else. If you enjoy this program and like what we do, support the work of the ACLJ.

Just do our biggest month, December. ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. If you're on Facebook, Periscope or the website, share it with your friends right now. 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. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about freedom.

We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow.

All right, if you're just joining us, let me tell you what's happened. Late last night, Justice Samuel Alito issued an order in the Mike Kelly, Congressman Mike Kelly's case against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That was on the changing of the mail-in ballot issues. He had initially gotten a TRO at the trial court that was ultimately overturned at the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Congressman Kelly then took it to the Supreme Court of the United States. The filing was on, and I'm reading directly from the docket sheet of the Supreme Court of the United States, was filed. The application for emergency injunctive relief, which is to stop the seating of the electors, was filed on December 3rd. An order was issued initially, and that order provided that the response was going to be to do Wednesday, two days from now. Last night, there was a change. Justice Alito issued another order saying the response to the application is now due Tuesday, December 8th by 9 a.m. That's because the electors are seated on December 8th at noon. So it gives the Supreme Court three hours to evaluate this. You cannot predict what that means in the case.

That would not be fair. But it does say, Harry, we talked about this during the break. Let's talk about it again for our full audience.

By the way, if you're on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, wherever you're listening, share this with your friends. You're getting an analysis here. You're not going to get anyplace else. We live these cases. I mean, we know them better than anybody. But obviously, Justice Alito wants the full breadth of response so they can then make a decision what he's going to do. Absolutely. So I think Representative Mike Kelly has filed a lawsuit. And if you look at the four corners of that lawsuit, that lawsuit, basically based on Justice Alito's decision, does include sufficient elements for bringing a cause of action, number one. Number two, for enjoining the state from seating its electors.

But equally important, the decision by Justice Alito and hopefully by the United States Supreme Court sends a strong and unmistakable signal to each and every state, particularly within the executive branch, that if you change your election rules shortly before an election and you do so without the consent of the state legislature, that in and of itself is a basis for litigation and for potentially at least, and I emphasize the word potentially, invalidating the results of that election. Yeah. And that would be obviously the determination of what's called the prayer for relief. What are we asking for? Let's take Linda's call. She's calling from Florida.

Very good call. Linda, welcome to the Broadcaster on the Air. Hi. After this step, what is the next step? What can we do as President Trump supporters, deplorables, our believers in the Constitution to help with this process? And also in 1967, I... Let me answer your first question because I got to keep moving today, Linda. Let me answer your first question.

What can you do? It's being done. So Congressman Kelly's brought cases, others on our teams have brought cases, we brought applications and cases. So what's going to happen is, what's the next step after this is, Justice Alito will get the brief, Sandy. He then will make a determination whether he will issue a stay on his own, which he has the authority to do, and refer to the court for further disposition, or just refer to the court immediately within that three-hour window. That's right. He has the right to make a decision as the Circuit Justice to grant an injunction against the... Temporarily.

Yeah. Only as a temporary injunction or temporary restraining order against further proceedings in Pennsylvania with respect to the seating of the electors, or he can refer to the full court for the determination. I'm not going to predict again which way Justice Alito is going to go. I have my own thoughts with respect to that, but it is now in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that is Pennsylvania. Remember, we're talking only about Pennsylvania right now, and that should be clear.

This does not affect other states. The cases before the Supreme Court on the electors seating in Pennsylvania, and an injunction to prevent that filed by Congressman Kelly. We've got coming up for you, as we go to break, a very important video that you need to see.

It's going to summarize where we are on a lot of issues. This is really important. So again, share this with your friends. We encourage you to do that. Support the work of the ACLJ. You can do that at ACLJ.org. If you're listening on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, share it with your friends right now and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

Also, glad to announce we're now on Rumble, another 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, 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. 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, playing 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. Hey, welcome back. If you're just joining us, breaking news out of the Supreme Court, Justice Alito ordering a response by tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on a challenge by our good friend Congressman Mike Kelly, who is joining us on the broadcast right now.

So if you are listening, call your friends and tell them to listen in. If you're on any of our social media platforms, I can tell you by looking at, you are, a lot of you are, tens of thousands of you are, share this with your friends right now. Really important. Congressman Kelly, thanks for coming on.

Tell us about what you brought. I think it's important for the people to hear from you why you brought this litigation. When you look at what happened in Pennsylvania, then you try to figure out why did it happen. Then you look at a piece of legislation called Act 57 was put through the Pennsylvania legislature back in October of 2019 for a no excuse mail-in ballot. We had the traditional way of voting, but this mail-in ballot, and this was far before the pandemic, so it has nothing to do with the pandemic, but it does have to do with something that if the Pennsylvania legislature would have really wanted to do this, they could have done something to look at Pennsylvania law when it came to voting, and they could have done an amendment. They chose to go the first step to start that, but then they abandoned that and put in this mail-in ballot, this no excuse mail-in ballot, with an omnibus bill that did not go through the proper channels, and it's unconstitutional what took place by changing the way we vote in Pennsylvania. Now, as we come forward, we find out that in this past election, the mail-in ballot, the no excuse mail-in ballot, and the scope of that, when you look at that and say, oh my gosh, if they had done it the right way, if they had done what they should have gone through, the process to change, they could have done an amendment, but that would have had to go before the Pennsylvania voters, they would have had to vote on a referendum to changing the way we vote in Pennsylvania. That did not happen. This got pushed through as part of an omnibus, it got locked in the wash, and all of a sudden ballot surfaced, and people were looking at it and said, my gosh, how did this happen?

It happened because we did follow the rule of law. So, Congressman, you took quite an initiative here. You and I spoke briefly about this early on. You took a very bold move, which I think this type, we've said this over and over again, that in this kind of situation, bold moves are what's required.

This is not for the tepid. You've got a bold move here. Why did you decide to do it? I think it's important for the American people to hear why you, a Congressman from Pennsylvania, said this is wrong, I want to take action. Well, I think every single American knows that in their heart of hearts, when you elect somebody to go and represent you, they take an oath of office. The oath that I took, and the oath that every other single member of Congress takes, and whether it's in your state legislature or the federal, you're looking at an oath of office. An oath is an important word here when it comes to what it is that you would do, because for anything that could affect you personally, you have to work within the confines and the construct of our Constitution.

The Constitution is not a suggestion. This is very carefully laid out as to what it is that we need to do to maintain our republic. Now, in Pennsylvania, there was an obligation because of your oath of office to follow what's there, and so, Jay, I think what really, when we look at these things, is people who are elected by their fellow citizens to represent them and work within the confines of a Constitution. And when you go outside that, or when you put your future in a political office above it actually doing what you're supposed to do under your oath, then there's something wrong with that. All we're trying to do is call attention to an unconstitutional issue that took place in Pennsylvania and allowed this no-use mail-in ballot to take over, and it's one of those things that has to be looked at.

It has to be up there for the public to see. You know, people, Andy, that say that the President is, you know, just delaying the inevitable or just, you know, why is he doing this? I mean, it's not as if there is not only precedent, but the Constitution sets out a framework upon which, and in the states, it sets out a framework like there's an election challenge in Georgia going on. That's different from what Congressman Kelly did.

That's right. There is an election contest going on in Georgia under the statute. What Congressman Kelly did, and I don't want to speak for him, but I've read his pleading, is saying the Constitution is not just a piece of parchment hanging in the National Archives. It is a living, breathing document that has validity today as it did in the 18th century when it was drafted.

And what it says is the legislature shall make the decisions with respect to the means and manner and method of voting in each jurisdiction in each state. And Congressman Kelly's attempt to get the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to do that was rebuffed. He's now seeking relief in the Supreme Court of the United States by way of an injunction.

Justice Alito has taken as circuit justice this action to give more time for the Supreme Court to act on this. I applaud Congressman Kelly for his support of the Constitution of the United States. Again, not just a piece of paper in the National Archives, but something that is very important and dear to us, which, as he said, he had took an oath to uphold, and he is doing it. All right, I want to go to Congressman Kelly if I can. Thanh Ben and our Director of Government Affairs, oh, we just lost, okay, we just lost Congressman Kelly.

Well, we'll try to get him back. Thanh, the Congressman here did take a bold move. Yeah, he sure did, and I would love to hear the Congressman's thoughts on this, because, you know, we've worked with him on a wide variety of issues today, everything from life to religious liberty to regulatory relief. But one of the things we've worked with him on is restraining the limits of the federal government appropriately, and he talked in his response to you.

Actually, I think we have him back, so Congressman Kelly, Thanh Ben here. I just wanted to follow up on the comment you made about the state legislature's role here. This is something that we have worked with you on a number of issues on. If you're going to delegate authority to a state or retain authority inside a state, you have to ensure that that state operates according to the rule of law, and that the legislature only delegates to the executive things that are within its authority to do so. In your claim here, isn't that what you're arguing, that the legislature went outside of its bounds to grant the executive this action? Isn't that at the core of the claim here?

Yeah, and I'm having, I'm sorry, I'm on the road, but yes. Look, I think what we're doing just makes sense, and I don't want to make this statement, because I think this is really crucial. This is not about Republicans only or about Democrats. This is about the Republicans, what's taking place. And it's also about the 1.4 million men and women in uniform that have given their lives because they took an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We're looking at what's going on right now. If we are going to abandon the very best block of who it is we are as a nation, then shame on us. And if you get elected to office, you take an oath, and that's your oath.

That's a serious dis-commitment. And I'm just so sorry for people telling me to stop. Well, I appreciate it, Congressman Kelly. I think we're having a little bit of a phone issue there, a little bit of phone problem, but I appreciate what you've done.

I appreciate the stand you're taking, and now we're going to see what the Supreme Court does. I want to say this. Our production team is telling me this.

Logan just asked me to mention this. We are having a phenomenal response right now on our social media platforms, but especially YouTube. Subscribe to, if you're on it right now on YouTube, which you are, we have about 120,000 or so subscribers. We've just really launched this recently, 129,000 subscribers.

I guess it's gone up some substantially since we've been here. Let me encourage you to subscribe. Just hit the subscribe button, and you are now a subscriber of our channel. I just did it here, and now you're subscribed. If you're on, and there are 26,217,000 of you that are on right now, subscribe. We encourage you to do that. Very, very important. So subscribe if you're on YouTube.

Same thing, of course, Facebook. We encourage you to do the same thing. Also, we're monitoring the chats. You can be a super chat, and we'll get to maybe some of those during the break coming up here.

I'll try to pull some of those so we can get those to you. Let me go ahead and take another phone call. Kimberly's calling from Georgia. Kimberly, go ahead. Hello.

Thank you for taking my call. If Justice Alito issues a stay of Pennsylvania seating their electors, what is to keep Michigan and Georgia, which is my home state, from seating theirs, and can it be remedied? So what would I think happen if there is a positive outcome, at least a temporary reprieve, so to speak, in Pennsylvania? I think other litigation would move. This has to happen in hours, would move quickly to these courts.

You could start moving cases quickly. There is a case in Georgia, for instance, so maybe that case becomes a quick move. There are cases in these other states, and then there could be direct actions taken by the states as well, Andy. Georgia's got some litigation you've reviewed that you're comfortable with.

That's right. There is the litigation in Georgia contesting the election brought in the Superior Court of Fulton County, waiting for a judge to be assigned to that case to hear the relief. There is actions taken in other jurisdictions challenging what has happened. The Supreme Court of the United States not seating these electors or temporarily enjoining them may send a signal out as to what the Supreme Court ultimately may do if these cases go before it. So it's an important, a very important decision that's going to come out tomorrow.

And I think it'll be before noon tomorrow in Pennsylvania, one way or another, as to what the Supreme Court says with respect to the Constitution and the legislature's exclusive right to determine the means, method, and manner of elections. We're going to stay live during this break. And again, if you're on radio, of course you're going to have a commercial break, but let me encourage you to stay with us and share this with your friends. If you're on Facebook, YouTube, Periscope, share this with your friends. We have probably 40,000 people or more watching just on those social media platforms.

That's not including the millions that listen to us on the thousand radio stations we're on every single day. So let me encourage you to do that. If you enjoy this program, if you find it informative, if you appreciate the work of the ACLJ, well then go to ACLJ.org and make a donation online.

Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. I encourage you to do that. And don't leave during this break. I've got some other news I want to give you on another matter, another case that may well be on its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. So there is a lot ahead. 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, Planned 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. Welcome back to the broadcast, everybody. We're going to take your calls, but let me encourage you, if you are on any of our social media platforms right now, subscribe to our channels. We've got close to almost 29,000 people.

We may hit 30,000 before it's over on our YouTube channel right now, and I think 14 or 15,000 on Facebook, and I'm sure plenty watching on our other social media platforms, Periscope and ACLJ.org. Very important, subscribe to those channels. There may be additional cases coming to the Supreme Court in the hours ahead. I'm talking about in the hours ahead.

I will keep you posted on that. Let's get some calls, and let's go to Pete, who's calling from Illinois. Pete, go ahead. Hey, Jay. How are you? Good.

Quick question for you. The executive order of the President Trump is in place for sanctions in the event of a foreign interference in the U.S. election. Is that just how then the VP brings it to the Congress, or is that just totally different? No, I don't see right now a scenario where the election is, I mean, it could be decided by Congress, but an executive order doesn't have anything to do with it. That's just foreign election interference. That doesn't really apply here.

Andy, I was going to ask you this. We're looking at the timing of all of this, and this is stuff taking place not in days and days and days, but in a couple of days and in hours. Yeah, it's literally hours, minutes even. I mean, decisions can be made that are going to affect the outcome of the United States government for the next four years that are going to be made by the Supreme Court of the United States and by other states and jurisdictions considering the various cases that have been filed literally in matters of hours.

I mean, think about it. Right now it's almost 1 o'clock Eastern. If your area is live and you're listening to this and think about it, the Supreme Court has said on Tuesday, December 8th at 9 o'clock, I want to hear from Pennsylvania, that means electors are going to meet at 12 o'clock. My prediction is there's going to be something from the Supreme Court before then.

Yeah, in order. I don't know what it's going to say, but let me tell you something. We are getting a phenomenal response right now on our media platforms because of this broadcast. We got Sergio listening from Paraguay, who's sending his regards to the President. But let me tell you what it reminds me. He said, let's keep up the fight because this is good for the world.

Let me say this, though. When you subscribe to our channel, which we're encouraging you to do right now, subscribe to the ACLJ's YouTube channel or Facebook, but on YouTube, also hit the bell next door. Next to the subscribe button because what that does is give you a notification when in fact we're on. So not only subscribe, and everybody that's listening right now should subscribe, but hit that notification button as well. Let's go to Doug who's calling from Wisconsin on line 4. Doug.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. Is Wisconsin a state that's doing something similar as Mike Kelly and also as Georgia doing something? Yeah, so there's litigation in Wisconsin that's going on right now, and there is litigation in Georgia going on right now.

So those states are still what I would call outcome determinative. Yes, there is litigation in Georgia. A suit was filed down there contesting the election in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state court system.

It's going to be assigned to a judge probably today, and then there will probably be an emergency hearing for the relief that is being sought down there. So these cases are taking place all over the country very fast, Jay. They're moving very quickly. The Supreme Court of the United States is moving very quickly. Various jurisdictions are because the time is running out. But, Harry, it's also important for people to know that the Supreme Court can act literally in minutes.

Absolutely, and one of the things that we should keep in mind right now is that during the pandemic, the Supreme Court can meet via their own video conferencing, and that does not necessarily mean that they have to convene individually, and they can decide very, very quickly whether or not to issue an enjoining order. Okay, let me go. I'm going to take the last call now, but we're going to take some other comments coming in. If we can get some comments from Facebook and YouTube, we'll get to those too. Elizabeth from South Dakota, go ahead, Elizabeth. God bless you, Jay.

I am a stay-at-home mom, and the work that you do is going to be beneficial for me in the upcoming years. But the question that I have is, as far as Amy Coney Barrett, and there was so much crowd over her confirmation hearings about the election and coming to her being able to rule on hearings coming to her about the election. Do you think that's going to be coming into play? You're asking whether she has to abstain. She does not have to abstain. Each justice makes that own decision. She did not say she was going to abstain, and Than, you talk about something that was the lasting legacy of the President. Regardless of how this election goes, she's on for life. Yeah, all three justices are going to be part of the legacy of President Trump, no matter when his term ends. And look, Jay, Justice Barrett was never involved in any case involving this election cycle, so there would be no reason, in my view, obviously that's not my decision to make, it's hers.

But Jay, I'll just tell you, I can't think of a credible reason by which she should even have to consider it in this case. I would imagine that she would be hearing this case if the full court takes it up. I think that's exactly correct. So I don't expect any abstentions. What I expect is that tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to file the brief in response to Mike Kelly's request for the emergency stay of the seating of the electors. That's what I think. Now, do I know the outcome of that?

I absolutely do not. And the reason I don't know is because Justice Alito has multiple options. He can decide it himself and issue a temporary stay while he refers it to the court. He could deny it or he could, Andy, send it to the whole court for a decision.

That's right. He's got several options that he can use. He can, like you say, temporarily grant it, deny it, or refer it to the court for consideration. So that's, you know, ultimately it's going to be the Supreme Court that's going to decide the fate of Mike Kelly's litigation in Pennsylvania and whether those electors are going to be seated or not. And it's going to come probably before 12 o'clock noon tomorrow when the electors meet and the slate is seated or not.

Sly on YouTube, you're going to appreciate this, in their Super Chat on YouTube said he's a fellow Georgian, Andy. He's going to be voting in person for the Senate runoffs. There was a debate yesterday. We didn't even get time to get into the debate. I'm not sure that debate changed the needle any, actually.

I think it was kind of a draw. I am so glad to hear that, Sly. I don't know where you're from in Georgia, but you go in there and you vote the right way.

I know you will. He's not telling you how to vote, however. I'm not telling you how you vote, but you know what to do.

There you go. That's from Andy in his individual capacity as a lawyer and resident of the state of California. As a lawyer and a citizen of Georgia. State of California. State of Georgia, right.

No, don't say California. No, no, no. So that's clear. Earl on Super Chat on YouTube says, God bless you guys. We also have OldMrYoungDude on Super Chat. I like that.

He said, thanks for the service for our country, ACLJ. Everyone watching, hit that like button. What he's talking about is on YouTube, which we have more people watching on YouTube than we've ever had, and we've just launched this really in the last, what, how long have we been doing this, Will? Just less than a month.

Just less than a month. We have, I mean, we have millions of people listening by radio because we're on a thousand radio stations, but this is a new platform for us. And we have, right now, according to this, 33,847 people watching just on YouTube alone.

Now that's like a good, some of these networks, that would be a good day for them. Also, what we want you to do is subscribe. So if you're on YouTube right now, everybody should hit subscribe.

You can do that. And then hit the little bell next to it. Because the bell will notify you that when we're on.

And we may have breaking news updates during the course of the day today and tomorrow and this week. So subscribe, hit it on YouTube, and hit the bell. Same thing on ACLJ if you're watching now on our Facebook page. We encourage you to do that. Okay folks, we're in the first week of our matching challenge. Your support of the ACLJ, and it was incredible in November, I must say thank you from all of us.

Your support makes a huge difference. Go to ACLJ.org right now. ACLJ.org.

Any amount you double, we get a match. We've got donors that are matching that gift. So we encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org and stand with the ACLJ. In our cases, in this broadcast, in our multimedia platforms and information we get out to you. ACLJ.org. Talk to you maybe later today. Protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.