SCOTUS Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit, What Happens Now?

Today on JCQO Live, the Supreme Court rejects Texas's lawsuit, so what happens next in the election challenges. We'll talk about that and more today on JCQO Live.

Live from Washington, DC. JCQO Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to JCQO Live. This is Jordan Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I know a lot of people have questions about the Supreme Court order in Texas. I've done interviews about it on places like Newsmax, but we do want to cover that for everybody and what happened, so I think we want to cover that right off the bat. The Supreme Court is on the side of the four states that Texas was suing. You had 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives, including the GOP leader Kevin McCarthy. You had two states saying you need to hear this case, but it came down to two very short paragraphs from the Supreme Court, Dad.

Let's break it down. First one says the state of Texas motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. The court went on to say that Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.

All other pending motions are dismissed. I remember there was a complaint to be filed that sought to have an injunction put in place that would then allow for the state legislatures, ultimately if they prevailed, to select the electors. The court said Texas did not have standing. That means the Supreme Court, and seven justices said this, that there was not appropriate standing, meaning, Harry, that there was not a legal, cognizable injury, at least in the court's view, for Texas. I think that is correct, and I think the Supreme Court arguably was wrong in that assessment, as Justice Alito and Thomas suggest, but I also think that we have to respect, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court's decision-making and their capacity to understand the rules.

I pointed this out this morning on Newsmax. I think one of the reasons, even from the conservative justices on the court, could be we don't need to do this. These four states already had the ability through their Republican state legislatures, could have thrown out all the Democrat electors, said we just don't like the way this was done, doesn't take a court case, just a vote. They all had the votes to do it.

They all were in control. Their votes weren't there, but if they want to do this remedy, it doesn't take Supreme Court action. So I think what we've learned, at least from this court, is that when it comes to election matters, they don't see another state's, that equal protection argument that you're disenfranchising our state voters. They don't accept that argument in this court. Let me say also, though, that Alito and Thomas disagreed. They said the court should have exercised jurisdiction and accepted the bill of complaint. But very important here, they also said that they would have granted the motion for the bill of complaint, but would not grant other relief, and they expressed no view on any other issue. So they would not have granted the relief, which would have been the injunction, and they would not have voted for that. Yeah, so really when it comes down to it, nine to zero, they would not have granted the relief. Being sought by Texas is really what is being said in this, even though Justices Alito and Thomas agree that the original jurisdiction of the court should mandatorily be invoked when state versus state. And I do think, Jordan, what you said is right.

I think that probably the majority of the court, including Amy Barrett, I think, and we don't know this, we're thinking, wait a minute, this is almost like a political question doctrine. The state legislatures, and here's four Republican state legislatures, have a way to cure it. And they could cure it today. Yes, they could cure it today. They're running out of time, but they could have cured it this whole time.

They could have said, you know what? Courts may not have liked these challenges, but we believe this is too much shenanigans occurred, and so we're going to put in our own slate of electors. And there was nothing that any court could do in the country to stop it, nothing that Congress could do to stop it. But none of these four state legislatures had the guts to do that. They were all Republican controlled.

At least not now, yet. And I mean, they're running out of time because electors are voting as we speak. And when we come back, let's talk about the electoral college meeting, cases that are out there, and what it means next. We do 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. It feels like early, but then I was at a Christmas event earlier with a socially distant Santa Claus with plexiglass, which I think the kids actually may have... It was like much less... There was no crying.

So he wasn't scaring anybody. And you got to talk to Santa through a microphone, which was kind of cool, and have this conversation with Santa that everybody could hear, which was fun. But you were thinking like, wow, is it Christmas? And then you had days out. No, when he said 12 days yesterday, I was like, wow, the Santa and... I was like, wow, 12 days?

He's the real Santa too. I think it's because of the election. Because of the election, and I'm sure for a lot of you, and COVID. So you can buy... Thanksgiving wasn't really normal for most people. Things aren't back to normal for most people.

Schools, a lot of them closed early, even in red states, even in places that have been more open. It just seems like it's not a normal year. Then you realize, wow, Christmas music is playing. And it's a good reminder of the importance. It's not just a fun holiday, obviously, about why we all celebrate Christmas and the birth of Christ. But I think it is more difficult for people to make the pivot when you're not able to go to your church's services leading up to.

And you have to watch them online, or you have to be one of the few people that signs up. And even then I've noticed, in places where, even though Dad the Supreme Court's been very good on the church attendance, I've noticed that people are still very concerned about going. And there's no childcare and things like that because of COVID. So it's tough to go...

I've got two young kids. It's tough to go to a more solemn service leading up to Christmas. No, of course. People understand that. Look, we've been fighting for churches to be able to meet, but you've got to be cautious. And they are. Let's get back to the discussion here.

Yeah, I want to get back to Texas for people. Yeah, if you're on Facebook, by the way, or on YouTube, let me encourage you to, first of all, subscribe to our page. So all you hit is subscribe, and that bell will let you know when we're on as we're on live right now. So we encourage you to go do that on Facebook, go live, and also, of course, on YouTube. We're also on Rumble Delayed, and then we're up on Twitter and Periscope and ACLJ.org, of course. But we want you to subscribe and share this.

It's really important to share this with your friends. The Electoral College is meeting today, so let's go to that. Yeah, so as we speak right now, it's interesting. We're waiting for news out of Wisconsin Supreme Court, because that was one of the cases that had made it all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on their votes. But their electors started voting at noon Eastern time, right, when we went on the air. And so electors are voting now. Now, there is a move, and I think we will see it kind of play out as the day progresses, that the Trump electors are showing up in some of these spots, some of these states that were contested, as a kind of a protest move. And they will say that, no, we should be casting a vote.

I don't think we'll get into the situation. I think it's going to be in four contested states. Yeah, yes, you will see this group of electors show up. I know that we pulled some history about that when things were contested in other states, and it was specifically Hawaii in 1960. Yeah, so 1960 in Hawaii, it appeared that Richard Nixon had won the state, but it was only by 141 votes. A court order to recount was still underway when the Republican governor signed the certificate from the GOP electors to give the state's three electoral votes to Richard Nixon. When they did the recount, it showed that Kennedy had actually prevailed, forcing the governor to sign a second certificate. But both certificates had arrived in Washington by the time the Congress convened in January, with then-Vice President Nixon charged with presiding over a joint session to certify his own election laws.

Hearing no objections, Nixon ordered the Democratic certificate counted and ignored the accompanying Republican certificate, even though it also bore the governor's signature. Now, what's happening now, though, is that in a variety of states—I think four, maybe six—the Republican electoral sites—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, I believe, Nevada, and Wisconsin—those electors are going to cast a vote. But the question is going to be, of course, that vote is not really—it's more of a protest vote than a binding vote, unless one of these cases that are still lingering were to do something.

Yeah, that's true, Jay. What it is is they're showing up as an alternate slate of electors saying, we are going to vote for our candidate—in this case, President Trump—regardless of the fact that the certified list of electors by the secretaries of state and the governors is for the Democratic nominee. But it's more, I think, of an expression of protest rather than anything that is going to be ultimately binding, because the one that is certified by the governor, of course, is the one that most of the electors are going to follow in their voting before college. This kind of tumult around the Electoral College is not really that unusual.

There's a great question coming in on our YouTube Super Chat. It says, an attorney for the state of Wisconsin during the hearings on Saturday said that the legislature didn't have the authority to choose their own electors. Why would they argue that? Well, the Constitution rests with the legislature the process. Now, maybe there's something in the Wisconsin process that says it's done by popular vote.

I'm not aware. No, I mean, that would have to be then a state law that was adopted. By the way, state laws can be overturned very quickly by state legislatures. So, I mean, unless it's in the Wisconsin state's Constitution, it may be that there was a law passed by their state limiting their authority. But again, those laws can be changed.

Laws are easy to change. The Constitution is more difficult, the state Constitution as well. But I think that specific to these cases, all of these cases, and listen, there's still cases pending right now. Like we said, Wisconsin, there's cases pending in Georgia. I think there's cases pending in Michigan. Some of Cindy Powell's cases are still pending as well. Lynn Woods got an appeal up at the Supreme Court. I mean, so there are still legal actions. There could be additional legal actions. The key date is really January 6th. There's members of Congress looking at taking action as well.

Explain that to people. Okay, so this would not be what we were talking about when we said that no one got to 270 and that because no one got to 270, you look at first the House state delegations. This is something that's done every election. In fact, Democrats did it to Donald Trump.

Just didn't get attention, but they did it to Donald Trump in 2016 when he won, so they did it in 2017. You have to have a member of the House file an objection to a state's election. They could file to multiple, to specific electors, so they could do it to all the electors from Georgia, all the electors from Michigan, all from Pennsylvania, all from Wisconsin. But you've got to have a senator that signs off on that. If a senator signs off on it, the House and Senate then must go back into deliberation for two hours over each of those and then vote.

Now here's the difference. They're not voting by state delegation, so what's tough then for President Trump in this scenario and Republicans? Senator Rand Paul has thought about being the senator that signs on to this to actually take it to that level where they have to have the debate, which again I think is not necessarily a bad thing for the country to have that debate in the House and the Senate. But ultimately it's a House straight up numbers vote and the Democrats, even though they suffered election losses, they still are in control of the House of Representatives.

So it would be uphill to say the least that the Democrats would be the ones voting to take Biden preemptively out of office. But that challenge is there constitutionally, legislatively, and it looks like it could be made and we could actually see at least the debate. But I do think that for legal challenges, you have to be honest as attorneys, the clock is ticking very fast and even if you say that this is not really the key date, that it's January 6th, when Congress certifies it or it's January 20th, well this is all now within a month. And you've had the Supreme Court weigh in.

I don't think they're going to, you're not going to hear anything else from them. I know that there are some appeals on state matters. There might be small things. I know that we still have a stay in. We still have a stay in place in the initial Wisconsin matter with the late votes, Pennsylvania.

There are not enough votes to change the election results even in Pennsylvania. It's not an outcome determinative. I suspect those will probably be lifted. I think we have to understand something here. I mean it's not as if anybody left anything on the field, Andy, as far as litigation has gone.

No. I do want to say there's still cases pending. But as nothing was left on the field, we went to every possible avenue that could be legitimately explored on the legal front. That has not worked.

No, it hasn't. And I think it is to the President's credit that he used the legal process in a proper way in each of the jurisdictions in which there was a question in Georgia and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and so forth, to challenge what had happened in the election. All the allegations of voter fraud and election rigging and so forth were debated and decided by the courts, unfortunately for the President adverse to him.

Okay, that's the process that we used. I think the President had the absolute right to challenge the election and the way that it was conducted by each of the states in the various jurisdictions in which election lawsuits and outcome lawsuits were filed. And finally, I think we sort of culminated, Jay, with a case of all cases, and that was Texas versus Pennsylvania in which the – Yeah, that was the outcome. Yes, it was outcome determinative in which the Attorney General of Texas joined with, what, 17 other by just 17 others. Well, 17 amicus. I think six other states tried to – or six of the states tried to also intervene. Intervene. So it wasn't as if it wasn't a significant case.

It just was – the Supreme Court said no standing for Texas, and even the two justices that would have granted review said we would not have given the relief. I think there's a great question coming in on Line 2, Jordan, we should take. I think this is – but we'll do it when we come back from the break. Yes, and I think for those of you watching on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube as well, we want you to subscribe on YouTube, click that bell as well so you get notifications when we're live throughout these processes, including radio broadcasts every day and days when we need to come back live to you. You get those notifications, so subscribe on YouTube.

We've been just opening that up for about a month, and we've got a lot of new people watching that way. Of course, our radio audience, but when we go to this break, we're going to be playing for you the Bald Beagle video that's produced for kids, but actually this explains the Electoral College and how it works. We put this out before the election, but so people understand, because I think, again, it's a civics lesson we all need to kind of remind ourselves with constantly, and this is a big day for the Electoral College as they vote, so we'll be playing that for those watching the broadcast. 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. Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice. Freedom Information Act requests that we're preparing on that to know exactly who knew what. Nancy Pelosi knows all this and then puts them on the Intel Committee.

Why is that okay? What did she actually know when they get these defensive briefings and what that means? As well as the issues involving Hunter Biden, his father, the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, which now includes Burisma and all this idea that this was somehow a lie. He has been under criminal investigation the entire fall and it looks like for maybe a year. And again, remember Joe Biden said that the President was lying when he talked about that with Hunter Biden. Now we get those emails coming out saying that Joe Biden's office mates with these Chinese investors and things like that.

We're going to get into all of that at the ACLJ. In fact, I think tomorrow I want to get into the Swalwell thing pretty deep because this was a guy that caused a lot of trouble, tried to cause trouble during the impeachment while he knew that there was a whole issue going on with him and the Chinese. And I don't want people to ignore what's going on with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden either because you think about what the grounds for impeachment were for this current President, President Trump and what we had to defend and they've actually got a criminal investigation going on into his son and he was doing business with his son. Lying about it, so who else did he lie about it to? Well, they tried to impeach the President over a phone call with the President of Ukraine. The Joe Biden matter involves business between the government of China, purportedly, and the Biden family. Was that going to get a pass on the House of Representatives?

It's going to be careful though because House of Representative margins are very thin and it may take a year or two. So tomorrow on the broadcast I think it would be good for us to take a look at the Eric Swalwell thing and I want some of the statements he made during the impeachment about the President being an agent of this one and that one. Let's get all those statements and then let's get what Joe Biden said to the President about your lying man about the son being, you know, should be investigated when in fact he was being investigated and Joe Biden obviously knew it. So I think we need to have all of that legitimate news inquiry. Don't ignore that, don't forget that because again. Today we got to deal with the election but we're going to get to that.

We will get to that. Yeah because I think it's dangerous not to because let's be honest about where things are looking electorally. I mean it doesn't look good for President Trump right now when you look at the court. Just be realistic.

Don't let these stories be buried by the end of 2020. And you've got a national election taking place in the state of Georgia for a Senate that literally will determine who controls half a branch of government. Your taxes, your green new deals, your tax the rich ideas. Your relations with Israel.

All of that. Any kind of major things you cannot do through executive action, executive order, that by the way then gets undone very quickly by the next President, things like that, takes both houses of Congress. If the Senate remains Republican your taxes aren't going to be raised. I think the economy will stay a lot more stable and you're not going to get the crazy green new deal passed through.

They can try to do some of that like piecemeal by executive order. But again, this is probably the, I've never seen anything because you've got two that are so significant and they should be, they're kind of like very two different races. One was an open seat run off.

The other was just a Senate race that David Perdue won, just didn't win by enough. But yet I think that when it comes to that day, who's going to split ticket that? It depends on who's going to show up. Let's take Steve's call from Montana.

He has a very good question. Hey Steve, welcome to JCECO Live. You're on the air. Hey Steve.

Hi gentlemen, thank you for taking my call. The Supreme Court rejecting the Texas case is just devastating. So I have two questions for you. If the three justices that President Trump nominated are considered to be constitutionalists along with the other two conservative justices, why would they refuse this case which really seemed to be perfect? And my second question is, do we have any viable legal recourses now to save this election now that the Supreme Court itself has turned against us and could this really just be the end of the Republic? Well I don't think any of this is the end of the Republic. I mean our Constitution endures.

Now let me answer a couple of these. With regard to the constitutionalists, look, Alito, Thomas, the other three you mentioned, you're talking about the newest justices, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett are all constitutionalists. That's their judicial philosophy. These are not easy cases. I've told you they were uphill cases to begin with.

They were difficult. And the relief that was being requested was extraordinary, which was throwing it back to the legislature. Now that's constitutional. But I think what Jordan said is the reason the constitutionalists said, you know what? We are federalists. Therefore, the states can fix this if they see it, Harry, as a problem.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not have a process which mandates that state legislators actually have a spine. They could have taken action. Each and every state legislature could have taken action.

That's number one. Number two, many of these state legislators could have taken action before November the 3rd. So part of the issue here, I believe, is that many state legislators have just slid around without focusing on doing their job. So I think going forward, it will be up to each and every citizen in each and every state to put pressure on members of the state legislature to make sure that election integrity and that all evidence of fraud is eliminated with respect to future elections. If we want to keep our republic, we must ensure election integrity.

But Jordan, you said something, too. I think it needs to be underscored again, and that is the Supreme Court knew that the states could fix this if they had the gumption to do it. Constitutionally, that's what the election clauses, the electors clauses do.

Right. I mean, each one of these states, they don't have to accept the results ever. They can always say by the state legislatures can say that there was something wrong. In this case, they can say we don't care that the judges thought there were standing issues on these cases. We still believe that what they were alleging happened and that there were violations that an executive branch and bureaucrats did not have the ability to change the rules and change.

There shouldn't be 200,000 votes counted in Wisconsin on absentee ballots that people didn't request an absentee ballot when the state law says you have to request an absentee ballot. Wisconsin could have said they could have come in and said we're going to do this. They didn't need the Supreme Court to do it. Now, we did think that obviously for them to get a backbone, it might take the Supreme Court.

That's what we said. For them to get a backbone, like Harry said, it would take probably a court, but that's not why the Supreme Court's there. So if there is another option of a remedy, the court is usually going to say that's the remedy that should be chosen.

And I think, again, on this matter specifically, that's how they got to it. Listen, if you're in Georgia, Republicans control it. If you're in Pennsylvania, Republicans control it. If you're in Michigan, Republicans control it.

Same in Wisconsin. The President says it's not over yet. The fight is still going on. Legal challenges are the difficulty. Yes, legal challenges, but remember, there's other ways. We've talked about how even Congress can get involved in this, and the President will continue the fight as he's pledged to his supporters.

And we want to make that clear in every case we've done. He has not conceded. I don't think the word concession will come out of his mouth. You know, he said he was quoted in an interview saying, it's tough for me to ever concede when all this has been put on paper, and all these cases were mostly thrown out on standing issues, not on merits. We'll be right back.

Second half power coming up. 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. So now, there's another matter we want to just bring up just because it's crossing the wires right now. John Durham, who now, remember, is a special counsel now. He's gotten special counsel status like Bob Mueller.

And there's arguments over how they can be fired. You know, most people believe the President can always fire them, but that the attorney general is more restricted specifically in doing it, so it has to be a Presidential action. But regardless of that, he is adding prosecutors as we speak, the report to Fox News, to looking into the matter on because he was slowed down by COVID significantly because of grand jury issues with COVID and deposition issues with COVID, tracking down things all around the world with COVID, as you can imagine. Not an easy time, but he's actually adding prosecutors and former U.S. attorneys.

We haven't gotten a list of those yet, but Fox News just put that out that his team is actually increasing. So for those of you who thought that's kind of going nowhere, that's not the case. I think, listen, it's going to put a lot of pressure would be on the new attorney. If there's a new attorney general come January and it's Joe Biden's pick, a lot of political pressure if you just go in and fire John Durham over the Russia probe. Oh, with the House of Representatives this close? Yeah. I mean, what's the difference in the House of Representatives right now? Is it 10? They have a five majority.

Five? Let me tell you what they can't afford. And the Senate might stay Republican. And that's why, you know, early voting started in Georgia today. You have in Georgia, and we're on a lot of stations in Georgia, a national election. Now, Andy, you're from there. I mean, it's a national election going on down there. I can't emphasize that enough, folks. The state of Georgia holds in its hand the determination of who is going to control the United States Senate.

That is a once in a lifetime happenstance. Senator Loeffler is running against a Baptist preacher in an election to fill the seat of Senator Isakson, who retired. That is a very close election. Senator Perdue is seeking to be reelected in a seat in which he is contesting against a Marxist, a young man who's never had a job in his life and who is very liberal and very radical. And who ran a heck of a race because he almost beat him. He did.

He came within 1.7 percent of beating Senator Perdue. But it is a national election in that that election is going to determine who is going to control the United States Senate, Jay. Yeah, no question about it.

I think we've got – you've got to be looking at it that way. Let's go ahead and take a – let's take John's call out of Ohio. John, go ahead. Hi. Thank you for having me on.

I love watching your program, and I'm very grateful for it. Considering that January 6th is coming up and the vice President has the final – has to certify the final electoral – with any pending legislation, does that allow Vice President Pence to say we cannot certify the votes? No. I mean, that's not how it's going to happen. It's presented – that's more of a ministerial act, right, Harry?

I think that is precisely correct. I think what the caller is getting at is not – Congress could do something. Congress could say, hey, no, we don't think this was valid.

I think that's a real long shot. There are also a few long shot legal cases out there that may indeed become outcome determinative if you can accumulate all of them together. But right now, I think it looks very, very dicey with respect to the litigation front. Yeah, I think that litigation in this kind of situation – like I said, we've left nothing on the field here. I mean, we've been to the Supreme Court on multiple cases, district court cases. There's still some state court cases.

State court cases. There's still – So that's all pending. But anyways, we're going to continue to cover it. Tomorrow's broadcast – I'm going to get into this Eric Swalwell thing, because he was difficult during this impeachment, and now he's right in the middle of it with China.

So we're going to get into that tomorrow on the broadcast. I want you to remember, too, as well, that December is a matching challenge month for the Americans Here for Law and Justice, how we bring you this broadcast every single day. It's all of our attorneys, how we're able to represent people at no cost. And even many of you have probably been represented – a lot of families represented during this COVID issues with the school issue.

We're still doing that. And we do that at no cost. And of course, all of the work we do at Government Affairs in Washington, D.C. and all over the world. Because of your financial support, December is a matching challenge month. Double the impact, your donation. We have a group of donors that say we will match every donation that comes through in the month of December. So if you're thinking about donating to the ACLJ, it's a great time to do it at 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've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the 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.

Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing. Welcome back to JCECU Live. We're taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. We do want to remind people too that early voting has begun today in Georgia.

If you are a Georgia voter, I'd say get in there, vote early, vote in person if you feel like it's safe for you to do so. Because again, there's lawsuits filed there that have nothing to do with the Presidential election by the RNC to make sure that this Georgia Secretary of State, you know, all these consent decrees that were put out because they were getting sued by Stacey Abrams' group, that this is going to be... That was so sympathetic litigation. Really awful.

Oh my gosh. And Georgia then conceded to... Unreal, unreal. Absolutely. And changed the whole signature of verification. Changed the entire election.

I mean, you know, it's like self-induced fraud. Yes, and so there's lawsuits there on Georgia conducting an election subject to the laws of the state of Georgia. And the fact is that we're even in a spot where we have to file a lawsuit like that coming from the RNC.

But listen, you all know the importance of this race. If you don't like the Green New Deal, you know who to vote for in Georgia. If you don't like higher taxes, you know who to vote for in Georgia. That can be prevented, regardless of who the next President is, by who controls the U.S. Senate. Is it going to be we're going to change America, Chuck Schumer? Or is it going to be we're going to stop radical policies, Mitch McConnell?

I mean, that's basically the question here. And for voters... Let me tell you, there's excitement on both sides. Money pouring in on both sides.

From what I'm seeing, more money is pouring in on the left. But money is not everything politically. And certainly if Georgia voters thought they were robbed in the Presidential election, they need to turn out that much more.

Because people need to understand the realistic how important it is. Your single vote matters. And again, it's very tough to predict these runoffs. People sometimes have election fatigue. I mean, I think the country could have election fatigue. Imagine if you're in Georgia and you're still being inundated with edge. You've still got politicians coming in.

They're all there still. Basically, you know, encouraging you. If you donated anything to the Republican side of this, I bet you're getting ten texts a day to your phone to donate to the Georgia fund. But it's very real. It's a national election. And also it has to do with if Joe Biden is President, everybody he appoints to a candidate position where it has to be confirmed would have to go through Republican confirmation versus just a pass on if it's Democrats. And so, again, I think it impacts Durham.

I think because the House has such a small margin. If the Senate stays Republican, Durham stays in place. If it doesn't, I think that they start removing people like that. And I think that's the kind of things that will implicate. Hunter Biden will go nowhere, the criminal investigation. But if it stays Republican Senate and it's barely Democrat in the House, then, you know, these moves, they're going to be very careful politically about moves they make because they're all up for reelection again in the House in two years and a third of the Senate is up.

No, that's 100% correct. So I think, look, that's where it is. Let's go ahead and take another phone call. We're taking tomorrow's call program.

I'm going to focus in on this Eric Swalwell situation with China and the allegations here and how we at the ACLJ will be involved in dealing with that. Let me go to Anita in Georgia. She is in Georgia right now online. Anita, welcome to JCECO Live. Hey, Anita. Hi, there.

It's good to talk to you guys again. My question is that the Dominion machines, which we know flipped votes, are still going to be employing. I mean, how do we get around these things?

Look, go ahead. If they flip our votes and we've got a governor and a secretary of state that are just hiding in the hole and sitting on their hands, a state Supreme Court that won't do anything, and our national Supreme Court that says we'll — I don't want you to take this as a reason not to vote because there's been no evidence that's been put forward in a court of law that shows that the machines actually switched the vote. So this is the — we're falling into prey of the left here, which is, oh, my vote's not going to matter, they're just going to switch it anyways.

That has not been established. So don't lose your right to vote and don't lose the control that you have over the outcome of where the Senate ends up because of these allegations involving Dominion. This is going to — listen, this is what the left wants you to do. They want you to not show up, Andy, in your home state. That's exactly right. What they're saying is they're putting out stuff about the Dominion machines being defective or not scanning the votes right and so forth.

This has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or any other standard in a court of law. Don't let that stop you from voting. You go into that precinct.

You can begin today, December 14th. You can walk in an early vote in your county, in your precinct where you are registered, and you cast your vote. Don't let them take away your right to vote by you saying in exasperation, well, it's not going to matter. It is going to matter. It's going to matter a great deal. Look, America is based on the ballot box.

You need to do it. Also, remember this. In those Dominion machines, David Perdue got more votes on election day, OK? He got more votes on election day.

Yeah, in most states he would have won. Yes. It was just Georgia has this particular state law on how that goes. So don't overreact to it. Don't overreact to that, please. Let's go to Gail in North Carolina. Hey, Gail, welcome to JCEC. You're live here on the air.

Thank you for having me, and I appreciate all the hard work, diligent work that you have done. I think the caller, two callers before me, asked a similar question to what I was asking, and it's that if there are any of these legal cases by chance, happen to get vilified, then can the Electoral College voting be changed? Or can the election be overturned once the Electoral College votes? Look, the key date is actually January 6th when it goes to the United States Congress. This is a statutory date.

Now, let's be clear. The legal challenges so far have not prevailed. Now, there may be legislative options, but the Electoral College is voting today, and I suspect at the end of the day there will be enough votes cast in the Electoral College for Joe Biden as President with the caveat that there will be votes cast, whether they're valid or not, different question, for the Trump slate in these four or six states that are out there. But the legal issue here is, I think, very difficult. I mean, there may be some more cases filed that people are saying.

There's the issues that are already pending. Everybody's waiting for Wisconsin Supreme Court. But, look, legally nothing was left on the table here, but it's a very difficult case. I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we told you this is some easy road.

I'm not going to mislead you here. And I think that, and over-hype things, we've been walking through this process the whole time. We said, you know, the big case, really it was a be-all, end-all, was the one at Supreme Court. It was outcome-determinative, had enough electoral votes at stake. You had a number of states basically divided on each side. And it was kind of a new thing for the Supreme Court to get. It was different than Bush versus Gore over, you know, how many recounts in a couple of counties you're going to keep doing overhanging chads. But it involved this kind of widespread issues in four different states. And so I do believe the Supreme Court probably, even the conservatives said there, is that state legislatures don't need us telling them that they had to, we don't need to invalidate their elections or tell them to stop counting, which is what they did in Florida during the Bush versus Gore case.

They have all the remedies available. They can put in whatever electoral slate they want. No one can challenge it, even to the Supreme Court. So if we step in and validate it, what does that actually do? It just, again, the states don't have to do anything specific. Remember we said, even a win at the Supreme Court isn't a guaranteed victory for President Trump.

It just puts more pressure on those states to put in a new slate of electors that mirrors what the allegations were. Let's go ahead and take the caller on one. We've got time to get it. Yeah, Nancy in California on line one. Hey, Nancy.

Hi, fellas. So I understand what you're saying, I guess I hear what you're saying. I don't quite understand because they say that it's a state issue with the whole Texas thing, but that affects the entire country. I mean, they took the abortion case, that affects the entire country. Under the Constitution, the election process is done by the states, Harry. That is in the Constitution of the United States. The states are responsible, you don't have a constitutional right federally to vote for President. Your states happen to, that's the method they chose.

Absolutely. So if you look at the Constitution clearly, Article 2 of the United States Constitution essentially governs the vote for President. And what does the article in the Constitution suggest? That the state legislators govern the process. So the decision that the Supreme Court took on Friday in many respects said, effectively, even though it's not written out, it's up to the state legislators to cure this process, which many of us see as defective on its face, but the cure lies with the state legislators, and so far they have elected not to have a spine infusion.

They could fix it right now. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the President's election challenge. That has come out. What was the vote? I'm looking at it right now as we speak. It's a fourth, four to three. Wow.

Seven justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. We'll get to more analysis on that when we come back from the break maybe. Alright folks, if you're watching on YouTube or Facebook, hit the like button or the subscribe button on YouTube.

Hit the bell, share it with your friends. We are almost at 300,000 subscribers, about 25,000 away. I'd like to hit that this week. That would be great. We encourage you to do that. Also, don't forget the ACLJ and a matching challenge campaign. Any amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift for.

Yeah, that's right. ACLJ.org. We have a question from a donor, Al Moore, on YouTube. He wrote, I'm a monthly donor. ACLJ is my donation match. It sure is.

Yes, it is. So for those of you who are already signed up for auto donations monthly, you get the match. So you double the impact to your donation as well. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later. A play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry. And what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. 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. Very similar to a lot of the cases. In fact, it kind of mirrored what I said on Newsmax this morning with this Wisconsin Supreme Court Election Challenge. Four to three, by the way. That's how close these cases are. People need to understand how close these cases are. And Wisconsin flipped.

Yes. The electoral votes would have flipped in Wisconsin because there were 200,000 plus votes being challenged in this case. Most of those votes were for Joe Biden because they were absentee ballots that went out to people in two counties, which are heavily Democratic, and they didn't request those absentee ballots, which you have to under Wisconsin law. And even the justices who are part of this four-three majority said it was illegal, said it was fraud, but not enough fraud, and that it was too late. They were challenging the rule book after the game. But let me tell you, folks, go back months and you will see courts saying, can't challenge this now because you haven't shown any harm yet. So the rule books were challenged. We know the attorneys that were doing it.

All across the country for months leading up to the election. And all the courts said, for the most part, and not every situation, but for the most part, you can't challenge these now because you haven't actually been harmed. And so you've got to wait for their harm. And then the court, four to three, over one vote difference in who won the state of Wisconsin. Unreal. What do you think about that? I think that these battles weren't fought all the way out.

That's why I keep telling people. They were. They have been. And they still are in some states. So there's Wisconsin. So you've got to check mark that. We were talking about that was hanging out there.

It's not hanging out there anymore. And I don't know that there's any other legal challenges left in that state. Some of those. There was a federal court case. There was a federal court case. There are a bunch by Sidney Powell that are sealed. It lost. There was a Trump appointment.

There's a bunch by Sidney Powell that are under seal. So we don't know a lot about where they are with some of the Dominion issues. But again, these courts that were taking it seriously, they did the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

And they put out the election right as the electors were voting in their 10 electoral. Let's take Tracy's call in Georgia. Yep. Hey Tracy, welcome to JCECO Live. You're on the air.

Line 6. I'm curious about the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing this Wednesday. Can anything change with regard to the outcome of that?

No. The Senate does not have the power to change the outcome of the election. Congress does. Congress does. So the House, a member of the House and a member of the Senate have to put forward a challenge to electors.

They have to do it. They can do it to all the electors in Georgia. You can do it to one elector. You can do it to some of them. And they can do it to each of those four states in question. Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. Again, you could do this.

Let's hope Michigan. And you have to have a House member and a Senate member. If one House member and one Senate member contest it, they then must stop their joint session to certify the election and debate it. And then after the debate, they have to have a vote. And the vote would be pretty close probably right now. But the Democrats control the House.

This is not the same as if you can't get to 270. So there is a way for Congress, but there is not a way for the Senate alone to do it. And right now, realistically speaking, Democrats, even with their slim majority of 10 votes, they're not going to vote to take out Joe Biden's electoral votes.

So it might happen. We might see this move happen where the joint session ends. They have to go into debate.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad debate to put these issues out there. And so Rand Paul is thinking about doing it on the Senate side, but it hasn't 100% committed to doing it. You have to have a U.S. Senator also sign on. So it takes one member of the House, one Senator. They did this to President Trump in 2016, so this is not new. There's not some kind of harassment. It's done regularly. Every time Republicans won the last three elections, two Bush elections and Trump's election, the Democrats did this.

So it's always done. There'd be more attention on it this time. But no, the U.S. Senate alone, they can investigate. They can put the info out there, but they cannot change the outcome of an election. And that's a good thing, by the way.

I don't think you want one branch of the Congress to be able to change an outcome of an election, even if you really don't like the outcome. But we'll keep trying to take phone calls and comments as they come in. Let's go to Kenneth in Illinois. This is interesting because I could ask Andy about this. Kenneth, welcome to JCEC here live.

You're on the air. Hey, thank you. So my question has to do with paper ballots. With all this information about Dominion coming out, I'm wondering if people will want to use paper ballots.

But my question is, is there any focus on that? Because if there aren't enough paper ballots, then people will be forced essentially to use Dominion or provincial ballots. Dominion is used whether or not you mail in or not. So it's a scanner. It's your scanner. So you might get a paper ballot when you do. So you vote electronically. And then you get a paper ballot that scans it in.

So it's supposed to be like a two-step verification. That's what happens in Georgia. It happens where I vote too.

Right. You go to the voting machine. The voting machine comes up.

It's a computer screen. You press it. And once you finish, it says, you want to change your vote?

No, yes, whatever. And then you say cast ballot and you push it on the screen. And then a document is printed out. And you take that document and you go to the scanner and you put it in the scanner. And you better look at that ballot before you put it in the scanner to make sure that it reflects what you put on that screen. I looked at my ballot very carefully to make sure it reflected what I put on the screen. And then once that ballot is scanned, you have cast your ballot.

So there's the answer for you right there. But again, I want to remind you, Senator David Perdue beat Jon Ossoff with those machines. Stop. If you're a Georgia voter, don't not vote. You better get out there and get 10 more friends to vote, but stop being discouraged. You could definitely win these elections. Republicans were leading in both.

So they just need you to show back up again and stop being discouraged. Who's putting out discouraging stuff? Who's trying to scare you away from voting? Let me tell you, it's Democrats. It's liberals. It's the left who's trying to put this out there.

Yeah, I think that's right. Look, let's be realistic. There is an attempt to persuade you to not vote.

Yes. They want a low turnout because they figured there are people who will turn out. Georgia voters are discouraged because of what happened to the President. Republican voters. Yeah, Republican voters. And therefore, don't vote.

That would be, first of all, I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, you should vote. And under those Dominion machines, remember, Perdue won. Loeffler was a different case because there were so many people running for that situation. But if you add up, I think Loeffler and Doug Jones, they were winning by like, they would have, 70%, it would have been like a 60% victory.

True. Yes. So let's see what happens. Election voting started today in Georgia. Early voting. So get out there and vote. That's what we want to encourage you to do.

Let me say this as we kind of wrap up the program today. If you are new to us, on YouTube especially, because we just really went live in the last month, we want to encourage you to subscribe to our channel. Now, we have about 200 and, what is it, well, 276,000 subscribers.

That's correct. And so what I want you to do is subscribe right now if you're watching us, just hit subscribe and hit that bell next to it, because that will let you know when we come live, because sometimes we come at different times of the day when we have news. Now, I want you to do that because I'd like to see us get to 300,000, certainly by midweek if possible, or by the end of the week, and we'll keep growing. That's a good way for us to communicate with you. Same thing on Facebook. Hit like and follow. Now, same thing on Instagram and Rumble. I don't know what their notification process is, but we're posted there.

It's not live, but a couple hours later, it's up. So we encourage you to go there as well. All these platforms, and of course, on our radio broadcast, you can call your friends and tell them to listen in, and millions of you do that. But also, don't forget, we're in a matching challenge campaign right now. Jordan's letting you know what to do. Folks, stand with the ACLJ. We're getting near the middle of the month here.

We're doing great, but we need to keep the momentum going. Folks, ACLJ.org, we have a matching challenge the entire month of December. It means you double the impact of your donation. How is that possible?

What does that mean? We have a group of donors to ACLJ that agrees to say, we will match every donation that comes through in the month of December. Now, you've got to take the initial step and make the donation, and they'll match all of them that come through, so you double the impact of your donation today at ACLJ.org.

We'll talk to you tomorrow. 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.