News

Fr. Frank Pavone explains why the battle for the election is far from over

The head of Priests for Life explained that the ‘merits’ of the election fraud case brought on by Texas ‘remain unaddressed’ by the Supreme Court.
Sat Dec 12, 2020 - 4:38 pm EST
Featured Image
Fr. Frank Pavone Periscope

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

December 12, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Renowned pro-life priest and former Trump campaign advisor Fr. Frank Pavone explained during an online broadcast why the fight for the 2020 election is not over, despite the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the election fraud case submitted by the state of Texas.

The nation’s highest court yesterday rejected a lawsuit brought by Texas and several other Republican-led states against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit sought to prevent the four states ostensibly won by former Vice President Joe Biden from certifying their vote counts or voting in the electoral college, citing unconstitutional changes to election law.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had argued that “government officials in the defendant states … usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes.”

“They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity,” he added, leading to “significant and unconstitutional irregularities.”

As Pavone noted, “the Supreme Court didn’t just dismiss that line of argument.” He pointed to the Supreme Court’s two paragraph order, which simply states that the case “is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.”

It reads, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” although Justices Alito and Thomas argued in favor of taking the case.

“The court did not state that those elections were carried out properly,” Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, added. “It’s a procedural matter. Is anything in that statement saying anything about how the elections were conducted in these other states?”

“The merits of the case remain unaddressed by the court,” he said.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

In fact, Supreme Court justices previously signaled their opposition to election law changes at issue in the Texas case, for instance the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s unilateral amendment of the state’s mail-in ballot deadline.

In an opinion dated October 28, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, declared that “there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.” Justice Kavanaugh evidenced similar reasoning elsewhere.

Pavone also pointed out that the “two key battlegrounds” of the judiciary and state legislatures “are still arenas that are active,” noting ongoing lawsuits in Georgia, for example.

“The underlying issues haven’t been addressed and if they are not addressed by the courts, they can be addressed by the legislatures,” which could send alternative electors to the Electoral College vote on Monday, Pavone said.

“The electoral college is not predetermined,” he reminded listeners. “Electors themselves can raise objections.”

Moreover, “[t]he date of ultimate significance is January 6, because even though the electoral college votes on Monday, it’s January 6 that the Congress meets in order to tally those votes and officially certify the results,” he said.

“Even when that happens,” those “who can raise objections are the members of Congress,”

Pavone continued. 125 Republican members of Congress signed onto a brief in support of the Texas lawsuit. The majority of Pennsylvania’s Republican state representatives, including the Speaker of the House, did so as well, most of whom asked Congress to reject Pennsylvania electors for Biden.

Indeed, “substantive constitutional arguments” are “not simply being made by one person, President Trump, but … by expert attorneys all over the country, by attorneys general of multiple states, by state legislators, by members of congress, by U.S. senators — arguments that are being made, that the Supreme Court today did not say were wrong,” Fr. Pavone stated.

“We need to be communicating with our state legislators, we need to [communicate] with our federal representative and our two US senators, to say would you please look at the evidence, look at the objections and do the right thing,” he added.

“And ultimately, we the people have to decide,” Fr. Pavone said. “We have to decide at this point whether we’re going to insist that our elections be legal and constitutional or not.”

Readers are encouraged to contact their state and federal representatives HERE.


  election fraud, frank pavone, priests for life, supreme court, voter fraud

Keep this news available to you and millions more

Your gift will spread truth, defeat lies, and save lives


Share this article