Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Breaking: SCOTUS Orders Response to Texas Lawsuit

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
December 9, 2020 12:00 pm

Breaking: SCOTUS Orders Response to Texas Lawsuit

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 806 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


December 9, 2020 12:00 pm

Breaking: SCOTUS Orders Response to Texas Lawsuit...

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Steve Noble Show
Steve Noble
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders

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

What does that mean talk about today Jay Sekulow live live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow elections in other states were state law was not required by the Constitution affects my voters because these are national elections and so if there fraudulent activities are things in effect, an election, and state laws not followed as as is required of the Constitution, it affects it affects our state.

It affects every state phone lines are open for your questions right now called 100-684-3110 actually getting some support from our neighboring states. The Atty. Gen. of Arkansas Leslie Rutledge say 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 and all legally appropriate matters. The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation, and it must be up now and now your host Jordan secular Jay Sekulow secular. So use\night with this breaking news. It's important to note with the Supreme Court did last night. The Supreme Court has worst required responses from the four states that Texas has sued it so those four states again. Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. They have to respond and not just it's it's to the bill of complaint, for leave to file the other bill you played a motion for preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order, or alternatively stay in administrative stay requested and after reply by tomorrow at 3 PM. We also have sets heard from other states attorneys general's 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 how they how to get it all multiple ways they can write in the present. Also getting involved up to. So what's happened is this the case of course was filed by Ken facsimile Atty. Gen. 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 and effectively diluted the value of the election of electors.

The people that voted in their state and the state of Texas. Now, what's interesting is the Supreme Court is going mention for somewhere to hurtle just they one is one which the case gets docketed in an anti-that was something we were looking at the case has been docketed.

That's right, it's been docketed been given a docketing number for those who want to follow. It's talking number 2204 original 155.

That means that the court at least gave it the imprimatur of legitimacy in thinking that it was a dockable case. That is one worthy of hearing and then turned around and ordered a briefing schedule by 3 o'clock is what Jordan said today in response is given to the allegations made by Texas last night about 6 o'clock. The court issued this order said response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint into the motion for plenary season for me injunction or temporary restraining order, or alternatively for the stay in administrative stay requests are due Thursday, December 10 by 3 PM. Let me hold up for you watching on all of the multiple platforms whether you're watching on Facebook or YouTube course listening by radio, but on listening, 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 administered for these various motions in the states have to file a response by tomorrow at 3 o'clock. I expect to have significant action on this case is already significant action, but I mean didn't possibly determine action could be as early as Friday Gabby I think Thursday would be pretty quick because they're asking for significant responses from the states by 3 PM, which again the court unless it was a very late in the evening order to actually go through all those responses for this individual for states what the courts ask him to do is not just one response respond to a number of things I Texas so again it looks like that would likely be Friday at the earliest but you don't know any could be Thursday evening, the court understands the significance of the timing here. Timing is very important to take your phone because it would hundred 64, 31, two, that's what hundred 684-3110 if you joining us on YouTube. As we've open that up as well. I encourage you subscribe and click that bell to get notifications when were live will be right back on Jay Sekulow live take your phone call support the work of ACLJCL J live on our let's assume you plan the American Center for Law and Justice were 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 fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

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 me way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift dollars $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms gift today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is certainly protecting. 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, defendant the right to life.

We created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right question for copy of mission life today online ACL data/Jay Sekulow like this Jordan secular to get folks significant move, the Supreme Court, Natalie docketed the Texas versus Pennsylvania attached to the beat title but it's Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Dave required a response from Pennsylvania, Georgia I Wisconsin and Michigan by tomorrow at 3 PM responding to the motion to leave to file bill of complaint.

The motion for preliminary injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and oral alternatively first day in administrative stay requested and so this is all you do. By tomorrow, which means the court not only accepted the bill of complaint but is taking 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 on that tomorrow Ed and again we will we will know how the states respond by 3 PM Eastern time tomorrow which reads court action on the Supreme Court action of this happening very quickly but that I think what's important point out, it survived that first round.

Listen, it got admit with that weird questions because his large look at every issue whether it would be admitted or not. That was one question to which there is any said he got a docket number.

Now we know that they have now requested a risk to actual written response that these are brief by the way, the real copies of these are bound when the ones holding up right here.

These are bound.

These are just printed copies. But there actually bound and printed. They will have the same obligation to get that in that way.

These various four states.

We think that there we know there are other states that are to be joining this we know that the President is now talking about the possibility of intervening or filing some kind brief in support of others will be filing briefs in support. Depending on what the orders we may file a brief in support will display 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 plenary injunction but was denied because it might be a dent in the court issue an order bobtail. I think I think, and it was denied because it was an outcome determinative for Pennsylvania. What a bit, but now they got a case that is literally election why determinative. That's right now and I agree with you it would not have made a difference in the ultimate decision is who to who becomes President. What happened in Venice Pennsylvania alone, but when you have four states with. I think fans that 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 know J that in this case, the Atty. Gen. 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 the constitutional manner and here is the violations of the Constitution that happened in the electors cause an equal protection there electors in those defendant states should not be given the same dignity of voting equality as my electors in Texas should be given who were chosen constitutionally. He's not talking about disputed facts. J 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 it's important to is it for all the cases that came before that the media loves to pooh-pooh and save the company they were dismissed is what I do Pennsylvania where it was a injunctive relief there was denied not the case was not dismissed or thrown out by this report is injunctive relief. This is what Pennsylvania was with 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 that what's interesting here is after all those cases that are not. The Supreme Court is making these four states respond yes to cases they have not yet had a responsive, correct, and course the media actually this case doesn't even exist yet is the one that's outcome determinative. When interesting God coming God question coming from YouTube on a super chat from Bob Willis report, just declare states electors void worker they do something else. Well I think it's most likely they would say the election process when it an inherent in the said election process was invalid. Thus, the legislature under the Constitution would be selecting the electors. I don't think you can order a new I don't see a chance of them ordering a new election. I don't know what no, not at all.

I think it's going to happen is exactly that unless Prof. Hutchison you wish to intervene in the habit now. I hope I am happy to drop further to my distinguished color. Thank you. Thank you. 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 want to. Don't do it. Electors from Georgia when there won't be any Pennsylvania Michigan Wisconsin is like I don't want to do it in the house and line that residential if you these four states can't get it together fan. Congress has the role they did then you look at state delegations is assessing on his back is worth.

Don't worry if it's a that one of the remedies is Congress because is not about who is in control the house by number. It's by state delegation and that we put at 627 to 22 Sam. Yet Jordan and actually died the complaint from the Atty. Gen. point is out very clearly. As it stands now, Joe Biden would be certified 306 electoral votes, but without the 62 in question here and drops his number all the way down to 244 now the first option for state legislatures.

As Annie pointed out, would be to set forward their own slate of electors turn. I think there's a pretty good cause to believe that some of the states would not be able to do that because of the divide in the legislature and some other factors 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. Saturday 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 to door and you don't know exactly how those would come out if no candidate got to 270, and it went to the House of Representatives and every delegation of voted as you would expect their partisan make out to do. And by the way, that's her seizure prescribed by the Constitution that but would be 27 to 21 Jordan yesterday regarding so that there's multiple ways where the relief is sought in the Texas bill of complaint what they filed here is that that kind of relief it's either state legislature.

First, they can't get the job done goes to Congress at all for the state legislatures are controlled by Republican, some by slim majorities.

Some estates or they might have nothing suing. What do you think, I thought about this that's getting some. It is getting to work.

It was step one step in the blessing the court would do. That means I get back 70s. Legislatures early onset mobile disk in a just and abide by the popular vote, then you had all these hearings then you had all the now you then you have a sprinkler hat what you think they do.

I think it changes with 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 of all the electors clause of the U.S. Constitution, so that I think they would look at it differently.

It's okay. Our election was illegal in our state that the sprinkler accident.

I think it does change. 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 and eat it in your home state. I know you very sensitive this right now and I and you are at this been a mess down there.

It is a mass and ILA. The liability that have the responsibility for this mass sends me may not like to hear this but on Brian Kemp, the governor and on Brad Roethlisberger, the Secretary of State, you might as well throw in the Atty. Gen., Chris Carswell, the leadership of the Republican bodies either 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 ravens Berger did was take a legislative mandate and basically disregarded by doing things that he has the Secretary of State had no authorization to do number one number two Brian Kemp the set, 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 them the things that were occurring in the election. He could've convene the general assembly and had it, select the slate of electors, so there is 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 do 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 J we think you have another time, but with augmentative right yeah I think that's a stiff different sulky tirade 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 really affect them to file lawsuits in the state run by Republicans to say that. Make sure that the runoffs are our follow all the law just get to be.

I think that's why this lawsuits report supports a career, follow the Lord out of his first question is reflected in the case that is really the case will stay with you if you watch on Facebook or YouTube and give her listen radio will be right back to ACLJ matching challenge ACLJ that are building only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and 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, defendant the right to life.

We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life support and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were 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 fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. 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 me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do.

Simply would not occur without your generous support to Courtney in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family.

You forgive today online ACLJ Jay Sekulow live I don't think people that this question came in from one of our super chats.

Well want to pursue other states are getting involved.

I hope Louisiana that was from Arley is what we know, the Arkansas Atty. Gen. said they will be joining Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, I think South Carolina and many others have said that there they supported their figuring out ways of how to get involved that could and it will have time to get involved at what it will have time. In this sense, take it they don't have to intervene necessarily into the litigation and other 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 an appeal. The sun in today's your we have 10 states say and then the President may intervene himself as the real party in interest because periodically throughout that he's the one that's impacted by this, obviously, and your course lab responses from the states and then there's the question of whether the Supreme Court order a reply to the various briefs that have been filed describes a state having to Stephan under substitute present from time joining the suit gap that plaintiff standing at all or anything like that. It should not meet original jurisdiction requires a B estate on each side.

So it's that is original jurisdiction, meaning it starts with the Supreme Court with if the President were to do it it's it's permissive.

It's not right is not exclusionary, but if they did that we didn't.

I don't think it would in all impact the very occasionally gives the state at the Las Vegas anytime estate is against the state that the Supreme Court of his other parties by the present. Also, do it amicus. He can call he could enervate him he needs is not an open executive opinion is that the when their business decisions against hearing so gets full, you'll fully hearing which seemed a distance by Alito and Thomas say you have no right to desirable. It actually has to fully review these cases because it's the only place for jurisdiction.

The only place the states can go. They have no other place to go to figure out their disputes know it's that it's it's I mean a kickstart out a different color. If you represent the state of Texas and you have a complaint against the state of Georgia is one place you go the Supreme Court and Justice Thomas and Justice Alito said in a case they dissented on because the court did not take the jurisdiction they viewed like a search for a petition that some of that but that statute says shall thrive instead of May, Justice Thomas being a textual list in 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 in 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. They have it. We have exclusive jurisdiction and I think that's part of the discussion that's going to be had.

J. Among the justices right now is that if discretionary or is an original obligate take the position that the Constitution mandates are not tics of phone calls. Lola patriot wrote it on YouTube super chatter.

Thank you for all you do to save our nation. If you're on you to remember subscribe that we just open this up. The past few weeks on YouTube live. Subscribe there.

I hit the subscribe button right next to the subscribe but you'll see a bell click on that bell and you get the notifications when we go live. That means will be go live for this show, but also like the Supreme Court did something we had.

We came back to the studio with live get a notification as well. So click that subscribe button click that bell let let me just kinda say let's go to the sky, the victors, because good here from Indiana because you're not hearing a lot about this in the news like not unless you watch our broadcast play scientist Max Headey talked about his mother that he had to impacted on the right Newsmax Yep Victor, an Indiana welcome to Jay Sekulow live hi Victor, I my question is, everything at loophole.

Now I understand that Supreme Court because Albania ignored the letter writer and went on and did their own thing about the Supreme Court and Pennsylvania have a loophole that they can get away with this, the Supreme Court hears is what you become aloof on the part part of it is, is there a legal theories that become defenses that were just mistakes and up the mountain. The fence one of the defenses they're gonna raise is that our probably there state Supreme Court said this process was mine, 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 that didn't write something like that. They may raise that kind of like a reliance argument Matt sent Simon to come up with defenses absolutely, so I think the state of Pennsylvania will indeed argue that there was a reliance improves the by the voters that would indeed be compromised if the United States Supreme Court intervene secondarily, and relatedly, they might may argue that those voters are now being disenfranchised by the original claim made by the state of Texas remains very, very powerful, though rules are governed first by the electors clause of the United States Constitution, which then gives power to the state legislator 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 help those votes disenfranchises not only the other citizens of Pennsylvania brought it dilutes the votes in other states, like the state of Texas or the state of Louisiana so there will be many arguments raise, but I think if we believe in the pre-eminence of the United States Constitution, then we should strongly consider the arguments raised in the bill of complaint by Atty. Gen. Paxton White. I wondered about this is a go to Jordan Phan on this because this is good if this goes back to the states. Jordan, the statement that constitutionally registers back to the states. The state legislature that these are Republican states you the Republican states in the state legislatures are are controlled by Republican, some by like one or two so I mean, they can easily select electors by the spring course I can tell how you have to select electors nor that you pick them, nor they can pick them they could pick all trump electors and they could do that because he could say it or they could say we still abide by the vote not now that would be kind of bizarre because the Supreme Court would be telling him that their vote was conducted illegally, but they still have that right so I mean even that even the Supreme Court to go so far as to basically say go this back to the states and the states could still end up putting Joe Biden office yet out so I think what happens more likely to fail in this quickly is that a couple of the states can't really get there baby figure this out because it is too divisive and it ends up in Congress yet that that's what I think is most likely Jordan, 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 sit at cast new electors. Or maybe it doesn't get there for 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. I want to do.

Do I think there would be at least a good faith effort to come back together and send their slate of electors, but if they don't look was the spring course not to pick a winner to me. Clear reports are picking winners here.

But I'll tell you what's in it that if they if they will in favor of Texas. These four states legislatures under the Constitution is often authored by our founding fathers. They come up with electors or they don't go to the Congress to decide you'll get to 70 that's what happened. I wouldn't be here for another 30 minutes if you don't get the full power of this broadcast but ACLJ.org go to periscope go to YouTube go to Facebook watching the laid photo rumble as well, although sites support the work of the ACLJ matching #ACLJ.4 the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be managed $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the world who knew protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and now your Jordan secular Jay Sekulow live.

Thank you for joining us are second-half are the broadcast. If you are watching on Facebook if you watch on YouTube and periscope make sure to share this broadcast with your friends and family a retake more of your phone calls. We explain what is happening at the US Supreme Court involving this Texas challenge to the states and the way they conducted Texas thing you conducted the election illegally violated the Constitution and the electors clause of article 2. You've violated our our citizens equal protection rights and due process rights, because your counting votes that were illegal and so because you conducted an illegal election. We are suing you specifically Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia I be that you look at the list I read it. It is again when you see the state. It's interesting to me that because Georgia sticks out to me. It's not all liberal states here, you've got you've got a Republican controlled state so again Georgette Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan that it all for the states. Interesting. State legislatures are Republican even though either very blue state. Very the other three are pretty blue states but sweet states and certainly in these were some small numbers between the trump and Biden each of the states, but it's not about fraud. It's about breaking the law is addressing you conducted in illegal election. Thus, you disenfranchised are voters in a different state because their vote was work, not worse. You know the one person one vote. II 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 the state hasn't grievance against another state and it was to go to the Supreme Court directly.

That's right in and the Supreme Court. In my view, correct, and as correctly opined on by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito has to take that case and decided 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 that therefore that can 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 their least four states that have been sued are responding to this is motions for leave to file a complaint, it's up request for stays it's across for administrative status request for preliminary and temporary restraining orders and are all Harry based on constitutional principles are not strictly fact sensitive. It's coming. Only facts are the they change the law without legislator proves let's focus on that for a moment. What is the gravy manipulable. What's the main focus at any for people understand because you pay part about ballot manipulations a part 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 Joslyn Benson without legislative approval unilaterally change Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verifications. The lead 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 violate the law right of Michigan and hence it violates the elect clause of the United States Constitution, next to our Jay Sekulow live record now a special advisor to the ACLJ he'll be joining us for his thoughts on this to because he's been involved in these challenges as well is been all around the country as is process, but also the story about one of the top three. Here he was, he was so nasty at present trouble areas while well Congress and swallow about you guys. I was in the Russian Russia. Russia is a Russian agent that we know there's a Chinese spy was very close to for years and least interns in his office and got into briefing. So, the former acting director of national postretirement that the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom detecting those who persecuted uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress 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 me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is protecting. 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, defendant the right to life. We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ plainly Jesus were 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 Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACL data/Jay Sekulow live or special visor record now joining us for acting director and tells that he would tell Robbins watch it on YouTube.

Super chair. There really gets his question.

Next segment. Rob would eventually insert specifically for you so that the next monopoly we receive your question really get to it.

But what I want to write to Rick one on justice since Rick the before you get to the swallow storages these election challenges in the media.

Basically trying to ignore what is probably the biggest challenge, which is that for states are are now having to respond to the Supreme Court about whether not they violated the Constitution and the laws of the the supreme law of the land in the way they conducted their election. 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 to petition the court present our case and let's see what happens. Nobody should be rest rest in this process, you know Rick, I wanted to say some because there is is a couple additional cases that may intervene here, one of which may, I don't know it yet, but may well include the state you been in charge of Nevada. What is the latest out there because they may end up at the Supreme Court.

If this intervention that some these other states do, or if the President does well shockingly last night.

The Nevada Marine Corps gave us about two and 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 and that you you have courts that are rushing to make decisions and and tests rather than listen to the evidence in this is the Supreme Court of Nevada has chosen not to even listen to the arguments, but to just quickly set it down and there's a lot of pressure on the Harry Reid crowd Nevada to quickly find an end to this and wrap it up all of the whatever happens with the Supreme Court. The fact that they they didn't just dismiss it, but they require these responses is all that work that you did all the work.

The people did across the country before the courts there all it's all before the court set whether not a state can violate the Constitution which is the state legislatures after pasties lot and their own laws and whether or not that impacts to proxy protection and now Pennsylvania. After respond, you did in Michigan and Georgia I and Wisconsin, and I potentially get Nevada Nevada and Arizona Mariah. The people I can 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 the city and so that they have the ability to say looking at you petition the court and now we have to live with the decisions of trying to stop an independent court proceeding I think is the dangerous car and and what watching the Democrats scramble to try to set this down I think is going to come back and haunt them for a very long time. The story to about Eric swallow. He deserves the attention of this because his. He was the one who, like Adam Schiff, you would continue to I probably to this day still regular quite about it now accuses the present. You know, being a Russian agent. Now the stories out Rick.

He had a Chinese spy no Chinese spy raising money for them and it was like it was it was super raising money for super pack was a mega devoted to him placing interns inside of his office, and finally the US government when Tobin said hello you got a serious problem on your hands and the reality of it also had a personal relationship with this part turned out to be a spy and we now need to really know everything about this at Eric's elephant on the intelligence committee access to Barry classified information and we now need tonality was compromised. We 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 that Democratic leaders knew exactly about his relationship with this person. So now we've we've implicated in a people like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, who Eric swallow the same has signed off on this relationship and they knew all about it. This is problem. I think at the very minimum Eric swallow, 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 and one member of their committee was doing with the Chinese spy is this Rick because swallow was one of the nastiest members of Congress involved in these impeachment hearings, and he made a horrible allegations of the President being an agent of the Russian government. I mean on and on it went in any areas cavorting with maybe twice, and he knew it.

Obviously I don't have a clue with a Chinese spy whose night left the country and the duplicity of this of course is ironic to say the lease and this spy was going after Emily was a city Council. So in that little alone was Congressman going to little bit more than just the hypocrisy and it certainly is terrible. Certainly, we see it on a daily basis, and most Americans just kind of beyond the fact that another politician is a hypocrite, but I think that this Eric swallow situation goes a little deeper because he had an agenda to downplay the Chinese threat. He bought the Chinese threat and constantly said now it's really rough that we should be focusing on.

I think that part of this gang of eight briefing in this house intelligence breathing NSN intelligence briefing needs to happen in order for our representatives in Washington to understand if this Chinese spy was somehow using Eric swallow elsewhere while I was participating in a Chinese strategy downplaying the Chinese threat and you lead by highlighting and overhyping the Russian threat. This is a very real concern and to be investigated immediately about this image is 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 Trina will be 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 I looked at DNI have information I think you can go to to Adam Schiff and 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 are going to want to come clean and say what what did this person on the house intelligence committee. Now, what did he tell this Chinese spy. This is a serious situation. Lastly, I'll just say you know I see a lot of social media people complaining and I certainly have complained about the media not taking up this case and placing it on. 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. There are, 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 got to place and so I think filing freedom of information act requests and pushing Adam Schiff and and other leaders. Marco Rubio is on the Senate intelligence committee is that the check right now we need to appeal to him. There needs to be a all transparent investigation. This entire situation. I say encourage this should begin special counsel to look at it. I actually don't believe that because I'm not a big fan special councils. Having said that, there are times when the nester here. I think the center should be blameless to the house, but I think that the Senate intelligence committee.

I think judiciary think they all need to be looking at this mysterious 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 will do that.

That's why your advisor leverage a wreck thank you Rick. I gives me specialized ACL.

Just because your support of the mixer flaw justice. You could double your impact this month. They sealed it with your donation ACLJ.org that's ACLJ.org it's our able to bring it to the broadcast to all the work that we do and bring in the special advisors like Rick Joy joy to some break that information.

No one else can. Because of the infant position. They've held in the US government. Let me also encourage you as well.

If you are on you to retrieve opened up and I do not ignore faithful cottages which do is be great for years, but if you're on YouTube now. Make sure you subscribe click that bell next the subscribe, but if you watch on YouTube you will understand what I mean to get notifications when we go live. So with the radio broadcast goes live. If we have to come back later today or later to tomorrow because it is actually by the Supreme Court on the election of the Texas case you get a notification on your phone. She'll know to to that you can click it right away. Make sure you subscribe on YouTube and click that that notification they'll do it right next to the subscribe but it's very easy to do it support the work they sealed.

ACLJ.org very back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is powering the right question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were 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 fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. 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 me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ.

The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you. You forgive today online ACLJ Jay Sekulow take your questions that are new to the people holding on the who are called into the broadcast as well. What give it a super chat around for you to be said about foster versus love Supreme Court case and on election mechanics. Does that have to do with that impact anything with this case of Harry we we research that for Rob.

Let's give the answer. Well, essentially, the answer is no, but it's important to provide some background. The question in that blue 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 sale 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.

Let's go ahead and take some call fiasco at let's go and I will write the order's Achaemenid South Carolina online for things for holdouts, a key figure on the air requested in court have the right to vote based on discretionary now this case Newtown acid while waiting the left again.

The Supreme Court denied just that portion about the injunctive and declaratory relief, and if so is the accepting of the case of an affinity for think I responded that okay in court except indicate yes or no. Look, it's it's a multi-that's a good, really good question. It's a multistep process so a couple things happen yesterday penciled. There was another Pennsylvania caseworker Congressman Mike Kelly father case, the court denied just as little as for briefing case got a number as it was a sigh 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 Pennsylvania but would not 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 it's a it's an official case before the court. They have request we found when I say we've missed a text file their brief, the President may be filing as well. This afternoon that was filed made the court then asked for the four states to respond by Thursday at 3 o'clock at which time a lot of things could happen. They could ask for reply brief.

They could grant the orders they could set it up for argument.

They could deny the case. So at that point issues joint. Yes, everything else I would try to answer these questions were. I was really good questions coming in to Matt in New York online to Matt.

They strolled on your on their little problem. Thank you all. My question is regarding Texas first four states and the screen court have different rulings per state and if so, what exactly would that mean for now. The ones I meet your suit for states and anti-they could come up with four separate work different positions. Yeah, how many do you look at each stating you that the allegations that were made by Texas against each state in the can say, well, California. Pennsylvania's election was conducted in accordance with the Constitution.

Georges was not Michigan's was wishing Wisconsin's was not so they could do that or they could say they were all constitutionally infirm, and therefore the legislatures have to make the decision on the slate of electors so there's a lot of options.

The Supreme Court has yet exactly right. And we were to start getting this info very quickly on the court because you tomorrow the state have aggressive dog days like Friday will be a very big day as well and will kinda know if it's good hello how and if it will continue at the Supreme Court is good Michael California line 1 hey Michael hi there, so I wanted out.

The question you were talking about 2 million remedy one of not getting any electors or oral having to spend different electors. So who make the determination of which shall remedy the Supreme Court of the state then saves your first question for up first because I think this is again they are not going to say don't send electors know the city back to the states. I think the first option is that she said to back the state legislature. What Texas said is that, of course, if this if those legislatures can't handle this. Then it goes to Congress. That's what your that is the law. The court second. I disagree with that soap the state legislatures will get the first crack at doing the seating new electors choosing new electors. If a couple that have problems with it though and no one is 270 within go to Congress that that's how it works Michael so I again the court is to be very careful about the negative sake, how you have to what electors you have to choose not to pick the doctor say what standard you have to use but they they if they get to that point what they have said, for each of those states of thoughts. It was all for states is that you conducted your election illegally in your state.

So your state legislature is to get involved because the executive branch of your state or did things that were wrong and the judicial branch and so your election is illegal you see new electors. The and then then it's the opportunity if they can actually get that done it. If not, and we put that out with. They had it within go out to Congress. I was go back to those against Sarah in Tennessee on line 5 Sarah welcome to Jay Sekulow live together they are state billing statement question and I got it in our state is not involved a lot of states are trying to figure out. Yeah, this is not yet this is not normal. Okay, this is an original jurisdiction case with briefing that was scheduled for a note 36 hours later, after the initial filing and you know their states and said we are going to intervene. We still haven't seen exactly what how they want it or visited because brief that actually are asked to become a party as a present with present how is he going to intervene as well, as he has said he will be indicates to do so. I think that there's a whole slew states if this gets far along enough the process that if he gets far along of the process. The ACLJ filing every cabinet. The Americans and flung it.

Look at the court says gain opportunity for amicus participation right.

I can see is filing a brief and say what I like to know that other states would add on babes as well on the constitutional issue so it's kind how I see it happen.

Let me ask you to do something if you're on a brand-new DU trauma value to 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 got over 40, 43,000 we watch right now. We want you to subscribe. It's really important that you subscribe to the Paetzold hit the subscribe button and then hit the bell next door to get notifications when we go live which is this time every day. But there other times as well. You may be watching this paper laid on the 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 what he gives us the ability to connect directly to you also learn the you know ended up the first eight days or so of our 10 nine days of our matching challenge campaign for December. This is her biggest month of the year.

George let you know what to do here but folks is really important. December the ACLJ right now. This program, you support this program.

That's why we keep it on the air. That's right, this is a great month to support the work. The ACLJ financially. That includes the radio broadcast because your donation is. It is double matching challenge but donate online@aclj.org. If you're financially able support our work. ACLJ.the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the one who knew protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime