Speaking to the House of Commons in June 1940, Winston Churchill made the case that he would offer his “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” to defeat the tyranny that was sweeping Europe. He said:
“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”
The venues and purposes may have changed, but it seems President Trump has taken this message to heart. Not to be left on the side-lines, the president has jumped in with both feet to bolster support for the unprecedented lawsuit from Texas facing the Supreme Court.
After numerous defeats in the courts to date, the fighter seems to still have gas in the tank, and as Churchill was heard to remark after completing his now famous oration, “And we’ll fight them with the butt ends of broken beer bottles because that’s bloody well all we’ve got!”
At the time the Nazis smirked at Churchill’s statements with an imperious attitude, much the same way the Democrats look down their noses at Trump’s efforts today.
Once More Into the Breach
The president tweeted:
“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”
Late on December 9, the president followed up on his tweet by filing a motion to intervene in the Supreme Court case in his personal capacity.
A number of other states have offered support to Texas and they could do so in several ways. As Liberty Nation Legal Affairs Editor Scott D. Cosenza, Esq. explains:
“There are a few ways states may act to support Texas or the defendant states in this action at the U.S. Supreme Court. Any state may seek permission from the Court to file a brief with arguments for or against either side. Called an amicus brief, for ‘friend of the court,’ it presents the best arguments they can muster to support a given outcome of the suit. That is a minor level of participation, however, combined with the possibility of joining the case.
A state could apply to become an intervener on either side as a party to the case. If that request were granted, they would be added to the appropriate side and proceed as if the cases were combined originally. Amicus status would almost certainly be granted by the Court, but being allowed to intervene is much less likely.”
At the time of publishing, 17 states (led by Missouri) have filed to become Amici Curiae in support of Texas.
A Question of Remedy
While this case is by far the most sober and constitutionally convincing challenge to the election so far, the requested remedy may be a step too far for the Supreme Court justices. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking that the court order new elections in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, or that the state legislatures be allowed to choose electors directly.
A common theme in the cases that have so far made it to courts across the country is that judges are reluctant to go ahead because of the remedies. They have written that to overturn or discount a portion of votes would be disenfranchising to a larger number of voters.
Which Way the Battlefield?
President Trump has been wise to not hitch his wagon to one particular method of attack, but it seems that his threat at “intervention” signifies either a need for progress or a rush at the end zone.
If the Texas suit fails, other suits will follow. According to the latest Rasmussen polling, up to 47% of voters believe that Democrats stole or destroyed ballots to enable a Joe Biden win; just 39% believe this was highly unlikely. In terms of winning hearts and minds, it appears that the president has the edge. With 61% of the adult population ready to accept that at least some fraud took place, Trump has at least one battle won – in the court of public opinion.
Perhaps the president has other words of Winston Churchill in mind as he continues his seemingly improbable efforts: “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”
Read more from Mark Angelides.