Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Although the news is dominated with stories of Biden and his betrayal of the American people, also known as lying about his mental acuity, there are other hopeful actions that suggest that lawfare will finally get its first major test. Attorney General of Missouri Andrew Bailey is fighting back for the people of Missouri, for other states and for Donald
Missouri filed a lawsuit against the state of New York on Wednesday seeking to lift the gag order imposed against former President Trump during his hush money trial and delay sentencing for his conviction in that case until after the November election.
Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York in May. Missouri claims the prosecution is politically motivated and is interfering with Missourians’ rights to hear from a presidential candidate, since Trump is currently under a limited gag order related to the case and is set to be sentenced in September.
Missouri’s lawsuit petitions the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing it has jurisdiction because the suit points to an interstate conflict. The court, which completed its term this week, can decide to take up this case on an emergency basis and make a ruling, or dismiss it.
Bailey explains in his lawsuit that District Attorney Bragg, when he worked for the New York Attorney General’s Office, campaigned on the promise that he would pursue Trump if he became the new D.A, and use his experience against Trump in that pursuit. He also pointed out that Bragg hired the third-highest ranking member from the Department of Justice to lead the D.A.’s prosecution specifically for this case.
To further make his point, Bailey stated:
‘I will not sit idly by while Soros-backed prosecutors hold Missouri voters hostage in this presidential election. I am filing suit to ensure every Missourian can exercise their right to hear from and vote for their preferred presidential candidate.’
The lawsuit identified three specific violations committed by New York:
・Interference with the Presidential Election in other States: The lawsuit alleges that New York's actions have directly interfered with the presidential election process in Missouri and other states, by constraining a candidate's ability to campaign and engage with voters.
・Violation of Purcell: The lawsuit argues that New York's prosecution of Trump violates the Purcell principle, a federal case that prohibits courts from sowing voter confusion or changing election rules in the months leading up to an election.
・Violation of the First Amendment Rights of Voters in other States: The lawsuit contends that New York's restrictions on Trump's ability to campaign unlawfully interfere with the First Amendment rights of Missouri voters to hear from and support the presidential candidate of their choice.
* * * *
I believe that Bailey has a valid case. The big question is whether SCOTUS determines that his case is worth considering, will take up the case, and vote in his favor. Lawfare has been going on far too long, in too many states, and it’s time to fight back.
Let’s hope the Supremes agree.
Discussion (27)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We can expect that ChiefJusticeJohnRobertsHeWillNeverLetConservativesDown will do everything in his power to block this from being heard. Alternately, if four Justices do want to hear it, he will maneuver to toss it on standing. After all that's what they did with Texas' suit about the PA election rules.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I'm too much the optimist, David. Lately Roberts seems to be speaking out (see Chevron) and these actions are so egregious--I continue to hope. I don't think he can toss it on standing--his citizens are directly affected by those actions. They may not accept his including the other states, but if they accept his suit for Missouri, it will be a start.
STAFF • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Why would you believe that in light of Murthy? If the citizens of Missouri have no standing over government interactions with social media companies why would they have standing in a New York court decision concerning a resident of the state of Florida?
STAFF • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
So Justices of the United States Supreme Court have loyalty to political parties?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I think you're talking apples and oranges. I think from Coney Barrett that they didn't want to have to do the work of reviewing thousands of incidents involving the social media companies. In this case, we're talking about one man who is being compromised in his run for president.
To see Coney Barrett's dissent, you can read here:
scotusblog.com
Open link
You're seeing five of 27 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.