A Brief Explanation of Pennsylvania's Defense to Texas' Supreme Court Case

This is the moment we've all been waiting for.

I’ve had several people ask for a further breakdown of the legal defenses submitted and filed to the Supreme Court in regards to the Texas case seeking to block the electoral voting of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

As of this writing, at least 20 states are now involved with this case in one of two ways;

By signing onto the case, siding with Texas directly OR by filing amicus curiae which means a state has offered to assist the court with information, expertise or insight that may bear weight on the case.

I’m going to tackle just one state’s defense filing within this article, Pennsylvania. Subscribe below to receive future writings, thank you. If you wish to read the entire filing, you can do so HERE.


The Preliminary Statement indicates that since election day there have been “frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising … voters,” but this simply isn’t true.

The state of Arizona found attempts at litigation and sworn affidavits so compelling, they declared the election contested. Many GOP state senators from Pennsylvania have sided with the Texas lawsuit also.

This brings us to the next large claim in the preliminary statement, “Texas has not suffered harm simply be- cause it dislikes the result of the election.”

Here’s the issue with this claim. Disenfranchising voters is what Pennsylvania has done to the voters of Texas. We all know there are tangible and overwhelming examples of voter fraud.

However, there is truth in the statement that the Constitution does not support how one state could dictate the manner of another state’s elections. Yet, the argument Texas is making is guaranteed in The Constitution, everyone has a right to vote and those votes will be equal and fair. Everyone gets one vote.

If what we know about Dominion is true, and it does fractionally “calculate” votes instead of “tabulate” them, the entire election needs to go directly to every state legislature. I believe Texas’ argument has merit for this reason.

The defense by Pennsylvania includes some liberal lunacy, as to be expected. “The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of President- Elect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.

Several statistical analyses have found the election of Joe Biden to be physically impossible. Even a common man like myself can see that Donald Trump, won 16/17 bellwether counties. Trump won both Florida and Ohio, but lost the presidential election, a statistically difficult thing to do. Additionally, states like Wisconsin had surreal voter turnout. The claim of “one in a quadrillion,” may not be too far away from reality.

This continues with a “statement of the case.”

Yes, mail in voting was expanded within the state in 2019. However, it is alleged that 2.5-2.6 million mail in ballots were returned when only 1.8 million were sent. Clearly, the mail in voting laws are irrelevant when fraud exists on that scale.

Yes, Governor Tom Wolf did certify the election, but this has little to no bearing on this case. The electoral votes have not yet been cast in congress. It’s nothing more important than a Tom Wolf autograph.

No. The allegations referenced within this statement were brought by parties relevant within the state of PA. They did not argue that voters from other states were affected by the actions of illegal regulation and widespread election fraud.

This opening statement lacks merit from all angles, and fails to dispute the legitimacy of Texas’ argument. Let’s shift to Pennsylvania’s argument:

Forgive me for being so candid, this ascertation is laughable. The Supreme Court has the merit to interject within this dispute as the argument clearly states. And while Mississippi v. Louisiana (1992) did determine interstate conflict should only be interjected into sparingly, don’t you think this would be one of those times?

It doesn’t? Again, see my voter fraud summary here. This argument goes onto say the following, “First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the “invasion of a legally protected interest”; that the in- jury is both “concrete and particularized.” Is disenfranchising Texas’ voters not an injury?

The argument’s claims then shift to a “moot action,” which we all know is outrageous. I don’t need to explain the validity of voter fraud that took place nor the severity such actions have to democracy. It is not too late to overrule the results of the election. Push comes to shove, it isn’t truly too late until noon time on January 20th.

According to the defense attorneys in Pennsylvania, removing the awesome power of “one person, one vote,” doesn’t violate the Constitution. Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, most likely laughed this document off of his desk.

As I’ve stated previously, the voters of Texas are the ones affected by Pennsylvania’s actions. The statement, read as two different parts, essentially admits it here.

Conclusively, this is a weak defense by Pennsylvania at best. If the Supreme Court chooses to not hear this case, it will be a slap in the face to our founding fathers, the Civil Rights Act and to me personally. My vote counts for one. Not .87 or 1.13.

I believe that after this weak defense, the fact the case is coming from so many individuals and the importance of case matter, it will be heard.

Please subscribe to my substack. It’s free, I don’t belong to any big tech or journalism censors, and I’ll keep you informed.