Newsmax.com reports that

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says he is available and willing to give the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court if the court agrees to hear an election lawsuit out of Pennsylvania challenging the constitutionality of lawmakers’ dramatic expansion of absentee voting.

Cruz, the longest-serving solicitor general in the history of Texas and a former law professor at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, was the first U.S. senator to publicly support the case, filed by Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, 2020 U.S. congressional candidate Sean Parnell and former state representative candidate Wanda Logan.

“If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument,” Cruz said on Twitter after first disclosing his intent on Fox News Channel. “Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I’ve publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA.”

Kelly’s appeal argues that Pennsylvania legislators last year passed legislation greatly expanding the use of absentee voting as pandemic fears raised worries about in-person processing of votes, making it a “no-excuse” mail-in election and contradicting the state’s constitution. It further derides the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for dismissing Kelly’s lawsuit for “laches,” a legal term for a procedural issue, i.e. saying the case was brought too late.

Cruz was especially critical of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s dismissal on the procedural ground.

“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long,” Cruz said. “The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.

Cruz also on Monday filed a friend of the court brief – along with 10 of his Senate colleagues – in Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s case challenging the Democratic National Committee’s stance that the Voting Rights Act bans state laws limiting absentee voting. among other measures.

On April 13, 2016, the following post appeared on legalinsurrection.com…

Noted liberal Harvard Law School professor (retired) Alan Dershowitz was on the Kelly File last night, and repeated what he has said before via News Max):

“He came into my class, literally his first day in law school with his right had up – not his left hand, his right hand,” Dershowitz said Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File.”

Cruz challenged his professor on everything, which made his job easier, Dershowitz said.

“I was against the death penalty, he’s in favor. I was in favor of the exclusionary rule, he’s against it,” he said. “And he made such brilliant arguments that I never had to play the devil’s advocate.”

Cruz “was one of the best students I ever had,” Dershowitz said.

Many of his liberal friends criticize him for praising the firebrand conservative, Dershowitz said, but he argues, “I have to tell the truth about my students, even if I disagree with their views – even if I’m not gonna vote for him. I’m not going to change history and pretend that this brilliant student was anything else.”

High praise from a man who knows more about the law than 99% of the practicing attorneys in our nation’s courts today.

Back in September of 2013, right before the disaster known as Obamacare was about to cost Americans their Doctors and Savings Accounts, Cruz held a filibuster on the Senate Floor against it.

His spirited defense of Americans’ right to decide their own health care, reminded me of the indefatigable Jefferson Smith, in Capra’s classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Smith (the late, great Jimmy Stewart) says the following as he’s delivering his filibuster:

Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties.

When you get down to it, what Senator Ted Cruz was speaking about was LIBERTY.

Our American Freedom has been endowed by OUR CREATOR. What happend November 3rd, was simply a step toward a totalitarian regime taking it away.

If Cruz can bring that same passion to the job of convincing the Supreme Court to rule in President Trump’s favor, it should be something that will be talked about for decades to come.

I believe that, if called upon, Ted Cruz would do a fantastic job on behalf of President Trump…

…AND LIBERTY.

Until He Comes,

KJ