>>11978536 (pb)
>If any action by the courts could shake confidence in republican government to its core, it would be the overturning of state election outcomes based on the retroactive nullification of safety precautions validly adopted in the face of a once-in-a-century global pandemic.Thus, this Court should decline to entertain Texas’s complaint.
The wholesale "adoption" (not a change in law) of unlimited "mail-in voting", which had been rejected by both parties as the one form of voting MOST susceptible to fraud, is merely a reasonable "safety precaution" in the face of this plandemic whose objective was to install "mail-in voting". This is the classic "slippery slope" legal argument to rationalize an absurd position, i.e.:
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??" …Well, perhaps not a slippery slope, but you get the picture and it's always fun using that gag scene. But it is STILL a slippery slope argument. Montana could have easily "adopted" a much more limited form of mail-in voting which STILL kept the important safeguards against fraud which have historically attended every "absentee-ballot" statute to provide for those voters physically unable to vote in person. But in their frenzied greed to steal this election, they overlooked any and all more restrictive mail-in voting proposals.
Also, Montana disingenuously (in court term for "lies") states that the "safety precautions [were] validly adopted". Newsflash to Montana, the executive is constitutionally barred from unilaterally changing established election LAW by fiat, i.e., "adopting" anything as law. Changing the law is the constitutional responsibility of the legislature, and only the legislature. So take your apples to oranges "validly adopted" and roll them down your slippery slope.