Breaking: SCOTUS Orders Response to Texas Lawsuit

Breaking news today on Jay Sekulow Live is the Supreme Court requires the four states sued by Texas to respond by tomorrow afternoon.

What does that mean? We'll talk about it today on Jay Sekulow Live. Live from Washington DC, Jay Sekulow Live. These elections in other states where state law was not followed as required by the Constitution affects my voters because these are national elections and so if they're fraudulent activities or things that affect an election and state law is not followed as is required by the Constitution, it affects our state. It affects every state. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. Paxton getting some support from a neighboring state, the Attorney General of Arkansas, Leslie Rutledge, saying her state is going to join the case in a statement saying, quote, I have determined that I will support the motion by the state of Texas in all legally appropriate manners. The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation and it must be upheld. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Jay Sekulow Live.

This is Jordan Sekulow. So I was on Newsmax last night with this kind of breaking news. It's important to note what the Supreme Court did last night. The Supreme Court has required responses from the four states that Texas has sued. So those four states again, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, they have to respond not just it's to the bill of complaint for leave to file of the bill of complaint, a motion for preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order, or alternatively, a stay, an administrative stay requested and they have to reply by tomorrow at 3 p.m. We also have heard from other states' attorneys generals as well about their interest in getting involved in this. Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas said they will be joining the lawsuit. Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, and there's many others who are considering how to get involved. And there's multiple ways they can.

Right. And then the President also getting involved now too. So what's happened is this, the case of course was filed by Ken Paxton, the attorney general for the state of Texas, and it sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and basically asserted that because the way the elections were handled in those states, it effectively diluted the value of the election of the electors, the people that voted in their state, in the state of Texas. Now what's interesting is the Supreme Court, as Jordan mentioned, first of all, we had two hurdles yesterday. One is you want to make sure the case gets docketed. And Andy, that was something we were looking at and the case has been docketed.

That's right. It's been docketed. It's been given a docketing number for those who want to follow.

It's docketing number 220 for original 155. That means that the court at least gave it the imprimatur of legitimacy in thinking that it was a docketable case, that is one worthy of hearing, and then turned around and ordered a briefing schedule by three o'clock, as Jordan said today, in response to be given to the allegations made by Texas. Last night at about six o'clock, the court issued this order.

It said, response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, or alternatively for the stay and administrative stay requests are due Thursday, December 10th by 3 p.m. Let me hold up for you that are watching on all of our multiple platforms, whether you're watching on Facebook or YouTube, of course, listening by radio, but are watching on rumble, whatever you might be on, this is what they have to respond to. That's the depth of the paper, the legal arguments that have been asserted for these various motions, and the states have to file a response by tomorrow at three o'clock. I expect to have significant action on this case. I mean, it's already significant action, but I mean, possibly determinative action could be as early as Friday. Yeah, I mean, I think Thursday would be pretty quick because they're asking for significant responses from these states by 3 p.m., which, again, the court, unless it was very late in the evening, ordered to actually go through all of those responses for these individual four states to what the court's asking them to do, which is not just one response, but respond to a number of things in Texas. So, again, it looks like that would likely be Friday at the earliest, but you don't know. I mean, it could be Thursday evening. The court understands the significance of the timing here.

Timing is very important. We're taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. If you're joining us on YouTube as we've opened that up as well, I encourage you, subscribe and click that bell so you get notifications when we're live. We will be right back on JCECO Live, taking your phone calls. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. And we're going to stay live on our social media platforms.

Here we go. 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, 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. Welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live.

This is Jordan Sekulow. And again, folks, in a significant move, the Supreme Court not only docketed the Texas versus Pennsylvania is how it's going to be titled, but it's Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan. But they have required a response from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan by tomorrow at 3 p.m. responding to the motion to leave to file a bill of complaint, to the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and alternatively for a stay, an administrative stay requested. And so this is all due by tomorrow, which means the court not only accepted the bill of complaint, but has taken that next action to say, we want the responses of these four states that Texas has sued. Other states are looking at joining this as well, as is the President of the United States. And again, we will know how those states respond by 3 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow, which means court action on this, Supreme Court action on this is happening very quickly.

But, Dad, I think what's important to point out, it survived that first round. Listen, we had questions, because as lawyers you look at every issue, whether it would be admitted or not, that was one question. As Andy said, it got a docket number. Now we know that they have now requested an actual written response. These are briefs. By the way, the real copies of these are bound. The ones I'm holding up right here, these are bound.

These are just printed copies, but they're actually bound and printed. They will have the same obligation to get that in that way, these various four states. We know there are other states that are going to be joining this. We know that the President is now talking about the possibility of intervening or filing some kind of brief in support. Others will be filing briefs in support. Depending on what the order is, we may file a brief in support. We'll just see. But right now, I will tell you this, that this takes on a whole new dimension. Now, it is true that the Pennsylvania case from Congressman Kelly was denied yesterday, his request for a preliminary injunction, but it was denied because, in my view, the court didn't issue an order.

But I'll tell you what I think. I think, Andy, it was denied because it was an outcome determinative. For Pennsylvania it would have been, but now they've got a case that is literally election-wide determinative.

That's right, and I agree with you. It would not have made a difference in the ultimate decision as to who becomes President, what happened in Pennsylvania alone. But when you have four states with, I think Thanh said, a combination of 62 electors who would be at stake here, that is outcome determinative, and it makes a difference. And I think it's important to note, Jay, that in this case, the Attorney General of Texas is very specific in saying to the Supreme Court, I'm not asking you to pick the President. I'm not asking you to do that.

What I'm saying to you in plain, simple English is this. My electors in Texas were chosen in a constitutional manner. The electors in Pennsylvania, Georgia, sorry to say, Michigan, and Wisconsin were not chosen in a constitutional manner. And here is the violations of the Constitution that happened in the Electors' Clause and Equal Protection. Their electors in those defendant states should not be given the same dignity of vote equality as my electors in Texas should be given who were chosen constitutionally.

He's not talking about disputed facts, Jay and Jordan, which I think is very important. He's talking about pure issues of law, equal protection of the law. That's why this is such a good lawsuit. I think what's important, too, is that for all the cases that came before that the media loved to poo-poo and say, oh, look how many they were dismissed, even the one out of Pennsylvania, where it was an injunctive relief that was denied, not the case was not dismissed and thrown out by the Supreme Court, but it was injunctive relief, this is what Pennsylvania was, that Pennsylvania case with Congressman Kelly was about. Part of it was about, it was not about fraud, it was about whether the law was violated due to the constitutional U.S. Constitution and the state laws in Pennsylvania, including their Constitution.

They're all going now, Dad. What's interesting here is after all those cases got thrown out, the Supreme Court is making these four states respond to cases they have not yet had to respond to. Correct, and of course the media acts like this case doesn't even exist, and this is the one that's outcome-determinative.

We had an interesting question come in from YouTube, a Super Chat from Bob. Will the Supreme Court just declare a state's electors void, or could they do something else? Well, I think it's most likely they would say the election process, go to Andy and Harry on this, the election process was invalid, thus the legislature under the Constitution would be selecting the electors. I don't think they're going to order a new, I don't see a chance of them ordering a new election. No, no way.

No, not at all. I think what's going to happen is exactly that, unless Professor Hudson, you wish to intervene and be happy? No, no, I'm happy to defer to my distinguished colleague from Georgia. I think what is going to happen is that they're going to say, legislatures in these four states, elect your electors in the constitutional manner, if you want to. If you don't want to, don't do it. The electors from Georgia, there won't be any Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia electors if you don't want to do it, and the House will.

Explain that. So if these four states can't get it together, Thanh, Congress has the role, then you look at state delegations, as I said on Newsmax this morning, don't worry if one of the remedies is Congress because it's not about who is in control of the House by number, it's by state delegation, and we point out it's like 27 to 22, Thanh? Yeah, Jordan, and actually the complaint from the Attorney General points this out very clearly. As it stands now, Joe Biden would be certified 306 electoral votes, but without the 62 in question here, it drops his number all the way down to 244. Now, the first option for state legislatures, as Andy pointed out, would be to set forward their own slate of electors. Jordan, I think there's a pretty good cause to believe that some of these states would not be able to do that because of a divide in the legislature and some other factors. So I think the most likely scenario is neither candidate would have 270 electoral votes. If that happened, Jordan, the election would go to the House of Representatives and each state delegation would get one single vote. So there'd be 50 votes cast total, and as it looks like right now, it looks like Republicans would control 27 state delegations, Democrats would control 21, and there would be two that were tied.

So Jordan, you don't know exactly how those would come out, but if no candidate got to 270 and it went to the House of Representatives and every delegation voted as you would expect their partisan makeout to do, and by the way, that's a procedure prescribed by the Constitution, that vote would be 27 to 21, Jordan. So there you go. So there's multiple ways where the relief is sought in the Texas Bill of Complaint. What they have filed here is that kind of relief. It's either state legislature first, if they can't get the job done, it goes to Congress. And all four of these state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, some by slim majorities, some, as Stan said, they might have trouble doing it.

I thought about this. We're stepping one step removed, but let's say the court were to do that. I mean, say it goes back. Some of these legislatures early on said, well, we're just going to abide by the popular vote. Then you had all these hearings, then you would have a Supreme Court order.

What do you think they do? I think it changes when the Supreme Court says it's up to you now, because that means the Supreme Court agreed with Texas that there was due process violations, equal protection violations, and the violation of the clear of the election law, the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution. So I think they would look at it differently and say, okay, our election was illegal in our state. That's what the Supreme Court's saying. I think it does change, Harry, the dynamic on how the states respond. I think you're precisely correct because the state legislators would then have cover coming from the United States Supreme Court. You would have an affirmative declaration that there was indeed lawlessness associated with the election, and then it's incumbent upon the state legislative branch to then intervene.

And I think it would be much easier for them to do so politically. Andy, you're home state. I know you're very sensitive to this right now in Georgia. I am, I am.

You are. It's been a mess down there. It is a mess, and I lay the responsibility for this mess. He may not like to hear this, but on Brian Kemp, the governor, and on Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state, you might as well throw in the attorney general, Chris Carr, as well. The leadership of the Republican Party, and they're all Republicans. They have not shown leadership in taking the bull by the horns and doing the things that they need to do in Georgia. Look, what Raffensperger did was take a legislative mandate and basically disregarded by doing things that he, as the secretary of state, had no authorization to do, number one. Number two, Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, has the exclusive right to convene the General Assembly. What he should have done, and that's the legislature in Georgia, the General Assembly, is when he saw the things that were occurring in the election, he could have convened the General Assembly and had it select the slate of electors. So there has been a lack of leadership in Georgia that is dismal, dismal lack of leadership in Georgia. And I think it's been reflected in the fact that we have chaos down there. We do not have the kinds of election that I think pass constitutional standards. And I think the suit filed by Texas, at least as to the allegations against Georgia, is perfectly in order, Jay. What do you think is going to happen down there, Jay?

Well, we'll talk about it during the break. Yeah, I mean, I think that's the difference, so we'll keep talking about it during the break, because there is also lawsuits filed there by the Republican Party to make sure that that election is conducted by the laws of the state of Georgia. I mean, the fact they're having to file lawsuits in a state run by Republicans, it's to say that, make sure that the runoffs follow the law. I mean, it just, again, to me, I think that's why this lawsuit, the Supreme Court is important. It's like, are we going to follow the law or not in our country? That's the first question you have to ask about everything. Well, that's what really is the question of the case.

That is really the case. So we'll stay with you if you're watching on Facebook or YouTube. And again, if you're listening on radio, we'll be right back. Support the work of the ACLJ Matching Challenge, ACLJ.org. Donate today. 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 JCEC You're Live.

This question came in from one of our Super Chats as well. One came in and said, what other states are getting involved? I hope Louisiana.

That was from Arlie. This is what we know the Arkansas Attorney General said they will be joining. Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, I think South Carolina, many others have said they support it. They're figuring out ways of how to get involved and if they'll have time to get involved. Well, they will have time in this sense. They don't have to intervene necessarily into the litigation in order to become a party. They can file an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief, with the Supreme Court, setting forth what their position is. And if you have a son in two days here, we have 10 states, say, and then the President may intervene himself as the real party in interest because he's the one that's impacted by this, obviously. And, you know, of course you'll have the responses from the states. And then there's a question of whether the Supreme Court's going to order a reply to the various briefs that have been filed by these states. So, Steph, President Trump's talking about joining the suit.

Does that play into standing at all or anything like that? If we did that, I don't think it would at all impact the jurisdiction. Any time a state is against a state, it's at the Supreme Court. If there's other parties, whether the President can also do an amicus, he could intervene.

There's multiple things that can happen. We've seen opinions that when there have been decisions against hearing, so against fully hearing, we've seen dissents by Alito and Thomas saying the Supreme Court actually has to fully review these cases because it's the only place for jurisdictions, the only place the states can go. They have no other place to go to figure out their disputes.

No, it's it. They can't start out in a district court. If you represent the state of Texas and you have a complaint against the state of Georgia, there's one place you go, the Supreme Court. And Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have said, in a case they dissented on because the court did not take the jurisdiction, they viewed it more like a certiorari petition, they said, but the statute says shall.

That's right. Instead of may, Justice Thomas being a textualist and an originalist, Justice Alito, the same thing says states have no remedy against each other except in the Supreme Court of the United States. So when they have disputes and they can be over water rights, boundary rights, in this case over an election and the constitutionality of the electors, where else can they go but the Supreme Court? So don't say that our jurisdiction with respect to state versus state is discretionary. It's mandatory. We have exclusive jurisdiction and I think that's part of the discussion that's going to be had, Jay, among the justices right now.

Is it discretionary or is it original? Are we going to take the position that the constitution mandates or not? I'm going to take some phone calls. Lolo Patriot wrote in on YouTube, super chatter, thank you for all you're doing to save our nation. If you're on YouTube, remember, subscribe.

We've just opened this up in the past few weeks on YouTube Live. Subscribe there. Hit the subscribe button and right next to the subscribe button you'll see a bell. Click on that bell and you'll get the notifications when we go live. That means when we go live for this show but also if the Supreme Court did something and we came back to the studio and went live, you'd get a notification as well.

So click that subscribe button and click that bell. Let me just kind of say, let's go to this call. I think Victor's call is good here from Indiana because you're not hearing a lot about this in the news unless you watch our broadcasts, places like Newsmax.

Newsmax. You had Ken Paxton on last night. Victor in Indiana. Welcome to JCQO Live. Hi Victor. How you doing?

Good. My question is, everything has loopholes. Now I understand the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania ignored the legislators and went on and did their own thing. Now does the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania have a loophole that they can get away with this?

Well look, the Supreme Court, here's what you're talking about, a loophole. I mean part of it is, is there are legal theories that become defenses. In other words, these states are going to mount a defense.

One of the defenses they're going to raise is that our, probably their state Supreme Court said this process was fine and thus the voters, Harry, relied on it. That'll be one of their defenses. I don't know how that cures an equal protection clause violation, but they're going to raise something like that. They may raise that kind of like a reliance argument in that sense. So I mean they're going to come up with defenses.

Absolutely. So I think the state of Pennsylvania will indeed argue that there was a reliance interest by the voters that would indeed be compromised if the United States Supreme Court intervened. Secondarily and relatedly, they may argue that those voters are now being disenfranchised.

But the original claim made by the state of Texas remains very, very powerful. The rules are governed first by the Electors Clause of the United States Constitution, which then gives power to the state legislators, legislature in Pennsylvania. And the court disregarded both the Constitution, that is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and disregarded the role of the state legislature. Hence, those votes should not be counted because to count those votes disenfranchises not only the other citizens of Pennsylvania, but it dilutes the votes in other states like the state of Texas or the state of Louisiana.

So there will be many arguments raised, but I think if we believe in the preeminence of the United States Constitution, then we should strongly consider the arguments raised in the bill of complaint by Attorney General Paxton. Well, I wondered about this, I was going to go to Jordan and Thanh on this, because this is going to, if this goes back to the states, Jordan, the state, constitutionally, if it just goes back to the states, the state legislature then, these are Republican states. Yeah, they're Republican states, and the state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, some by like one or two, so I mean they can easily select electors by, the Supreme Court's not going to tell them how you have to select electors. Nor are they going to pick them.

Nor are they going to pick them. They can pick all Trump electors. And they could do that because they could say, or they could say, we still want to abide by the vote. Now, that would be kind of bizarre, because the Supreme Court would be telling them that their vote was conducted illegally, but they'd still have that right. So, I mean, even the Supreme Court could go so far as to basically say, throw this back to the states, and the states could still end up putting Joe Biden in office. Now, so I think what happens more likely, and I'll go to Than on this quickly, is that a couple of these states can't really get it there, maybe figure this out, because it's too divisive and it ends up in Congress.

Yeah, that's what I think is most likely, Jordan. I mean, I think it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court would make an outright decision, but I think some of these legislatures will take another look based on the opinion, if it were to come back to them. And either they would cast new electors, or maybe it doesn't get there. But Jordan, if you're a state legislator, and you have a choice to make a decision for your own state, or let it go to the House of Representatives, what would you do? I think there would be at least a good faith effort to come back together and send their slate of electors. Listen, the Supreme Court's not going to pick the winner, to be clear. The Supreme Court's not picking winners here. But I'll tell you, if they rule in favor of Texas, these four states, legislatures, under the Constitution, this has all been thought through by our founding fathers.

Either they come up with electors, or if they don't, it goes to the Congress to decide. If you don't get to 270, that's what happens. Alright, we're going to be here for another 30 minutes. If you don't get the full hour of this broadcast, go to ACLJ.org. Go to Periscope, go to YouTube, go to Facebook.

If you're watching Delayed, go to Rumble as well. All of those sites. Support the work of the ACLJ. Matching challenge time, ACLJ.org.

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. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. Thank you for joining us for our second half hour of the broadcast.

If you are watching on Facebook, if you're watching on YouTube and Periscope, make sure to share this broadcast with your friends and family. We're going to take more of your phone calls as we explain what is happening at the U.S. Supreme Court involving this Texas challenge to the states and the way they conducted. Texas saying, you conducted the election illegally. You violated the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article 2. You've violated our citizens' equal protection rights and due process rights because you're counting votes that were illegal.

And so, because you conducted an illegal election, we are suing you specifically. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia. I mean, you look at the list, it is, again, when you see the state, it's interesting to me because Georgia sticks out to me, it's not all liberal states here. You've got a Republican-controlled state. So, again, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Now, all four of those states, interesting, the state legislatures are Republican, even though they're very blue state, the other three are pretty blue states. But swig states certainly, and these were some small numbers between Trump and Biden in each of these states, but it's not about fraud, it's about breaking the law. It's about saying you conducted an illegal election, thus you disenfranchised our voters in a different state because their vote was not worth, you know, the one person, one vote.

I think what you just said is very important. This is not a exercise in just constitutional history here. This is actually how the Constitution works. So, what was the redress available when a state has a grievance against another state? Andy, it was to go to the Supreme Court directly. That's right, and the Supreme Court, in my view, as correctly opined on by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, has to take that case and decide where else can a state go if it has a grievance against another state, but pursuant to the Constitution, to the Supreme Court of the United States. And therefore, those cases between states, just like this one right here, needs to be heard by the Supreme Court, and I think ultimately this case will be. I want to show everybody again what these four states that have been sued are responding to.

This is motions for leave to file a complaint, it's a request for stays, it's a request for administrative stay, it's a request for preliminary and temporary restraining orders. And they're all, Harry, based on constitutional principles. They're not particularly fact-sensitive. I mean, the only facts are that they changed the law without legislative approval. So, let's focus on that for a moment.

What is the graviment, if you will? What's the main focus? For people to understand, because they've heard about ballot manipulations, they've heard about trucks running back and forth with ballots, but this really focuses on these changes in law that took place without legislative approval for elections.

Precisely. And so, it may be helpful for our audience to consider the state of Michigan. There, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, without legislative approval, unilaterally changed Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verifications.

The state legislature did not ratify any of these changes. The Michigan Constitution provides that all registered voters have the right to request and vote by an absentee ballot without giving a reason. But on May 19, 2020, the Secretary took it upon herself to announce that her office would send out 7.7 million ballots to voters.

That violates the law of Michigan, and hence, it violates the electors' clause of the United States Constitution. Coming up next, too, on Jay Sekio Live, Rick Rinnell, our special advisor to the ACLJ, he'll be joining us. I want to get his thoughts on this, too, because he's been involved in these challenges as well. He's been all around the country as those persistent. But also, this story about one of the top, you know, he was so nasty about President Trump, Eric Swalwell, Congressman Swalwell, about, you know, Russian Russia, Russia, he's a Russian agent. Now we know there was a Chinese spy he was very close to for years and placed interns in his office. He got a defensive briefing.

So the former acting director of national intelligence will be talking about that. 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. 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. Alright, welcome back to Jay Sekio Live, our special advisor Rick Rinnell. Joining us, former acting director of National Intelligence. I do want to tell Rob, who's watching on YouTube, super chatter there. We're going to get to his question next segment, Rob. We want to make sure we answer it specifically for you. So we've got the next segment coming up. We see your question. We're going to get to it.

But I want to go right to Rick. One on, just a sense, Rick, before we get to the Swalwell story, just these election challenges and the media basically trying to ignore what is probably the biggest challenge, which is that four states are now having to respond to the Supreme Court about whether or not they violated the Constitution and the laws of the, the supreme law of the land. In the way they conducted their election. Look, I think it's a good day whenever we have the ability to petition our government and to challenge different decisions from local, state or federal government. This is the hallmark of being a democracy. We have the rule of law. We have the opportunity to petition courts, present our case and let's see what happens.

Nobody should be rushing this process. You know, Rick, I wanted to say something cause there's, there's a couple of additional cases that may intervene here. One of which may, I don't know it yet, but may well include the state you've been in charge of, Nevada.

What is the latest out there? Because it may end up at the Supreme Court if this intervention that some of these other states do or if the President does. Well, shockingly last night, the Nevada Supreme Court gave us about two and a half hours to respond in writing to an appeals and then they immediately dismissed us and, and shut it down. I mean, this is, this is getting a little bit crazy in that you, you have, uh, courts that are rushing to make decisions and end this rather than listen to the evidence. I mean, this is the Supreme Court of Nevada has chosen not to even listen to the arguments, but to just quickly shut it down.

I think there's a lot of pressure on the Harry Reid crowd in Nevada to quickly find an end to this and wrap it up. I think, Rick, though, that all in all, whatever happens with the Supreme Court, the fact that they didn't just dismiss it, but they're requiring these responses means all that work that you did, all the work that people did across the country. All that's going to be before the courts. They're all, it's all before the courts now, whether or not a state can violate the constitution, which says the state legislatures have to pass these laws and their own laws and whether or not that impacts due process equal protection.

And now Pennsylvania is going to have to respond, you know, in Michigan and Georgia and Wisconsin and potentially you get Nevada and Arizona. This is going to give the people a chance to feel more a part of the election, feel like it's a credible election. I mean, look, I think the Democrats should be very eager to see this to the end so that they have the ability to say, look, you petitioned the courts and now we have to live with the decision.

So trying to stop an independent court proceeding, I think, is the dangerous part. And watching the Democrats scramble to try to shut this down, I think, is going to come back and haunt them for a very long time. I want to go to the story, too, about Eric Swalwell. You know, he deserves the attention on this because he was the one who, like Adam Schiff, you know, would continue to, probably to this day still, he may be a little quieter about it now, accuses the President, you know, of being a Russian agent. Now the story is out, Rick, that he had a Chinese spy, a known Chinese spy, raising money for him.

I mean, raising money for a super PAC was a mega donor to him, placing interns inside of his office. And finally, the U.S. government went to him and said, hello, you've got a serious problem on your hands. Look, I think the reality is he's also had a personal relationship with this person who turned out to be a spy, and we now need to really know everything about this. Eric Swalwell sits on the Intelligence Committee. He's had access to very classified information, and we now need to know if he was compromised. We need to know what he knew and what he shared with this individual who he did not know was a Chinese spy for a while.

This is a very serious situation. He's now come forward to say the Democratic leaders knew exactly about his relationship with this person. So now we've implicated, you know, people like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, who Eric Swalwell is saying has signed off on this relationship, and they knew all about it.

This is a problem. I think at the very minimum, Eric Swalwell must step down from the Intelligence Committee immediately until these questions are answered. I think there's a case to be made that we need to declassify this information. At the very minimum, there needs to be a Gang of Eight briefing and a classified briefing to the entire Intelligence Committee on what a member of their committee was doing with a Chinese spy. Can I ask this, Rick, because Swalwell was one of the nastiest members of Congress involved in these impeachment hearings, and he made horrible allegations, the President being an agent of the Russian government, I mean, on and on it went. And then here he is, cavorting with maybe, you know, to what extent he knew it, obviously I don't have any clue, with a Chinese spy who's left the country. And the duplicity of this, of course, is ironic to say the least, and this spy was going after him when he was a city council member. So, let alone when he was a congressman.

Go ahead. I think it's a little bit more than just the hypocrisy. I mean, certainly hypocrisy is terrible, certainly we see it in Washington on a daily basis, and most Americans just kind of yawn at the fact that another politician is a hypocrite. But I think that this Eric Swalwell situation goes a little deeper because he had an agenda to downplay the Chinese threat. He mocked the Chinese threat and constantly said, no, it's really Russia that we should be focusing on. I think that part of this Gang of Eight briefing and this House Intelligence briefing and a Senate Intelligence briefing needs to happen in order for our representatives in Washington to understand if this Chinese spy was somehow using Eric Swalwell or Eric Swalwell was participating in a Chinese strategy to downplay the Chinese threat. And do it by highlighting and overhyping the Russian threat. This is a very real concern and it needs to be investigated immediately.

Rick, what do you think about this? I'm just kind of thinking out loud here. If our office in Washington were to issue a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department to find out who this, you know, what we can find out about this person and who this person engaged with. Because obviously this was going on for years. I think that you should also petition the various agencies. Who else would it be? I think, look, the DNI is going to have information. I think you can go to Adam Schiff and ask for the committee to look at this. You know, we certainly in the public should be demanding more accountability, more transparency. Transparency is not political. I say that constantly, but in a situation like this, I would think that there are a lot of Democrats who are going to want to come clean and say, look, what did this person on the House Intelligence Committee know?

What did he tell this Chinese spy? This is a serious situation. Lastly, I'll just say, you know, I see a lot on social media people complaining and I certainly have complained about the media not taking up this case and pushing it. I don't think that it should deter us because I think we need to understand that the DC media and the intelligence community reporters that cover the intel issues in Washington, they're all partisan. And we need to just understand that they are not going to do the job of holding them accountable. We have to do that. We have to act accordingly because they are not going to be able to do this.

They don't want to do this. And so we've got to push. And so I think filing Freedom of Information Act requests and pushing Adam Schiff and other leaders, Marco Rubio is on the Senate Intelligence Committee as the chair right now.

We need to appeal to him. There needs to be a full, transparent investigation of this entire situation. Dare I say, and I'm not going to encourage this, you should get a special counsel to look at it. I actually don't believe that because I'm not a big fan of the special counsels.

Having said that, there are times when they're necessary. Here, I think the Senate should be able to handle this. So should the House.

But I think that the Senate Intelligence Committee, I think Judiciary, I think they all need to be looking at this. This is serious. Rick, we appreciate you being with us. Thanks for the update and thanks for giving me a couple more agencies to direct our attention to. We'll do that. That's why you're an advisor. We appreciate it, Rick.

Okay, thanks. Rick, again, as being a special advisor to the ACLJ, it's because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. You can double your impact this month to the ACLJ with your donation at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. It's how we're able to bring the broadcast, do all the work that we do, and bring in these special advisors like Rick to join us and break that information.

No one else can because of the positions they've held in the U.S. government. Let me also encourage you as well. If you are on YouTube, which we've opened up, and I'm not ignoring our Facebook audience, which is huge too and has been great for years. But if you're on YouTube now, make sure you subscribe and click that bell next to the subscribe button.

If you're watching on YouTube, you'll understand what I mean. So you get notifications when we go live. So when the radio broadcast goes live, if we have to come back later today or if it's later tomorrow because of this action by the Supreme Court on the election, on the Texas case, you'll get a notification. On your phone, you'll know to tune in. You can click in right away.

Make sure you subscribe on YouTube and click that notification bell right next to the subscribe button. It's very easy to do and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. 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 JCEC. We're going to take your call. We've got questions on YouTube, people holding on who are called into the broadcast as well.

One came in, a super chatter Rob from YouTube. He said, what about Foster versus Love, a Supreme Court case on election mechanics. Does that have to do, would that impact anything with this case? So Harry, we researched that for Rob.

Let's give him the answer. Well, essentially the answer is no, but it's important to provide some background. The question in that Louisiana case was whether or not the state law, the state open primary law violates the federal statutes that establish a uniform federal election day, essentially the first Tuesday after the first Monday of the month. So in Louisiana, they would hold their open primary in October. And so a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that that approach to federal elections does in fact violate federal election law.

But I don't think it has any impact on the outcome of the litigation pending before the United States Supreme Court. Well, let's go ahead and take some calls. Yeah, let's go ahead. Let's go ahead. I want to go right in the order. Sakima in South Carolina online for thanks for holding on. Sakima, you're on the air.

How are you doing? Good question. The Supreme Court has the right to based on discretionary power. Now, this case, you've kind of answered it while I was waiting, but I'm asking again, did the Supreme Court deny just that portion about the injunctive declaratory relief? And if so, does the accepting of the case and saying that the four states got to respond, does that mean that the Supreme Court accepted the case? Yeah. So no, look, it's a multi, that's a good, really good question.

And it's a multi-step process. So a couple of things happened yesterday. There was another Pennsylvania case where Congressman Mike Kelly filed the case. The court denied, Justice Alito asked for a briefing, the case got in a number, so it was accepted for filing, a request for briefing. The briefing schedule went out, they responded, and then the court, when it was circulated to all nine justices, denied the preliminary injunction. That case would have been maybe outcome determinative for Pennsylvania, but it would have not been outcome determinative for the election.

In this case, it is outcome determinative for the election because of the four states named, but again, it's the same process. The court accepted the filing, so it's an official case before the court. They have, we filed, when I say the state of Texas filed their briefs, the President may be filing as well this afternoon. That was filed. The court then asked for the four states to respond by Thursday at three o'clock, at which time a lot of things could happen.

They could ask for a reply brief, they could grant the orders, they could set it up for oral argument, they could deny the case. So at that point, issues joined. Yes, I mean, there you go. So I've been trying to answer these questions for, really good questions coming in to Matt in New York online too. Matt, thanks for holding on. You're on the air. No problem.

Thank you. My question is, in regards to Texas versus these four states, can the Supreme Court have different rulings per state? And if so, what exactly would that mean for the other ones?

Well, no, I mean, sure. I mean, you've sued four states, and Andy, they could come up with four separate, four different positions. Yeah, I mean, you look at each state and you look at the allegations that were made by Texas against each state and you can say, well, Pennsylvania's election was conducted in accordance with the Constitution, Georgia's was not, Michigan's was, Wisconsin's was not. So they could do that, or they could say they were all constitutionally infirm, and therefore the legislators have to make the decision on the slate of electors. So there's a lot of options the Supreme Court has.

Yeah, exactly right. I mean, we're going to start getting this info very quickly out of the court because tomorrow the states have to respond. I think Friday will be a very big day as well, and then we'll kind of know how and if it will continue at the Supreme Court. Let's go to Michael in California on Line 1. Hey, Michael.

Hi there. So I wanted to ask you, the question is that we're talking about two main remedies, one of not sending any electors or else having to send different electors. So who makes the determination of which remedy? Is it the Supreme Court or is it the states?

Well, hang on, let's answer your first question first because I think this is important. They are not going to say don't send electors. No, they're going to send it back to the state. I think the first option is that you send it back to the state legislature. What Texas said is that, of course, if those legislators can't handle this, then it goes to Congress. That is the law.

The court's not going to disagree with that. The state legislatures will get the first crack at doing this, seeding new electors, choosing new electors. If a couple of them have problems with it, though, and no one is 270, it would then go to Congress.

That's how it works, Michael. So again, the court is going to be very careful about it. They're not going to say what electors you have to choose. They're not going to pick. And they're not going to say what standards you have to use, but if they get to that point, what they have said for each of those states, let's say it was all four states, is that you conducted your election illegally in your state. So your state legislature needs to get involved because the executive branch of your state did things that were wrong or the judicial branch, and so your election is illegal, you see new electors.

And then it's the opportunity, if they can actually get that done, and if not, and we pointed that out with Than, it would then go to Congress. Let's go back to the phones again. Sarah in Tennessee on Line 5. Hey, Sarah, welcome to JCQ Live. Good afternoon. I live in Tennessee.

Yep. I'm joined a lot of people in social media and contacting the office of our governor. Bill Lee, in addition to contacting his office and his AD by phone, obviously we're asking that our state joins the law against between states in question.

And I got the impression that they don't have much interest in this. And how many of us are so disappointed that our state is not involved? Well, I think that a lot of states are trying to figure out, this is not normal. This is an original jurisdiction case with briefing that was scheduled 36 hours later after the initial filing. And there are states that have said we are going to intervene, but we still haven't seen exactly how they want to intervene. Is it an amicus brief?

Are they actually going to ask to become a party? Is the President, how is he going to intervene as well as he has said he indicates to do? So I think that there's a whole slew of states, if this gets far long enough in the process, Dad, if it gets far long enough in the process, it would be like the ACLJ filing a brief. Yeah, I mean, if the American Center for Law, look, if the court says, gained an opportunity for amicus participation, I could see us filing a brief in support of other states will add on briefs as well on the constitutional issue.

So that's kind of how I see it happening. Let me ask you to do something. If you're on, we're brand new to YouTube, I've been on YouTube for a long time, but as far as the live aspect of it goes, this is in the last couple of, really since the election. We've got almost 43,000 of you watching right now. We want you to subscribe. It's really important that you subscribe to the page. So hit the subscribe button and then hit the bell next door so you get notifications when we go live, which is this time every day, but there are other times as well.

You may be watching this tape delayed on Rumble, subscribe again there. Do the same thing with Facebook. But we really want to encourage these numbers and increase the information that we can get out to you, and it gives us the ability to connect directly to you. Also, we're ending up the first eight days or so of our, nine days or so of our matching challenge campaign for December.

This is our biggest month of the year. Jordan's going to let you know what to do here, but folks, it's really important that you stand with the ACLJ right now. This program, you support this program. That's how we keep it on the air.

That's right. This is a great month to support the work of the ACLJ financially. That includes the radio broadcast because your donation is doubled. It's a matching challenge month. Donate online at ACLJ.org if you're financially able. Support our work, ACLJ.org.

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.