The role of the courts and the Supreme Court in the failed election.
Anyone willing to read or to listen learned that election fraud had beset the 2020 elections. Texas and 18 other states filed suit in the Supreme Court to extend the certification deadline. The Supreme Court, apparaently terrified at the implications of massive irregularities totally destroying a presidential election, decided to adhere to the media policy of denying the obvious. They refused to hear the suit, insisting that Texas and the 18 had no standing. It was not their business that other states had run their elections in such a manner as to elect the candidate with fewer valid, legitimate votes. The Supreme Court and the media stood together to launch socialism in the United States.
The state of Texas plus 18 lawsuit was against four other states, asking the Supreme Court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors. It appeared that electoral fraud had occurred in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, thus the “election” had apparently produced the wrong winner. That fraud had canceled the legitimate votes of Texans and made them, along with the voters of 18 other states who joined the suit, the losers of the corrupt election. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases between states. It is usually to adjudicate disputes between states with issues such as water rights. If the laws of a state have spillover effects for neighboring states, they can take action to ameliorate harm done to the health and well-being of the citizens of the affected state(s).
The propaganda media will try to convince us that the Supreme Court rejected the “evidence” of the Texas suit. They would give confirmation to the frequent, automatic claim that there has been “no evidence” for the claims of voter fraud in the election. They have tried not to discuss the legitimacy of this potentially constitution-ending election by ignoring the issue altogether. When it is not possible to avoid mentioning it, they will simply aver that “there is no evidence” of any wrongdoing. This is really an audacious cover-up, because conservative broadcasters such as Fox News and Newsmax spent weeks documenting the election fraud. They presented specific information and a multitude of eyewitnesses testifying under oath about the techniques used to steal the election. They testified persuasively of what they had seen and experienced. They were far more convincing than the media’s representatives who sneeringly reported “no evidence!” And they signed with responsibility their affidavits.
There have been numerous online credible and documented reports of the results of the fraud. Whistle blowers elaborated on the activities that delivered fraudulent ballots, evidence of fraudulent counting of the ballots, over-voting, backdating postal dates on ballots, midnight deliveries of truckloads of illegitimate ballots, and on and on. Listed along with this and my recent blogs, see the Navarro Report, which provides an excellent quantitative analysis of election activities and results. Also, find there Sidney Powell’s report and the Georgia Senate’s report on the numerous fraudulent techniques applied in that state’s overturning of the election results to favor Joe Biden, the actual loser in Georgia.
In denying the Texas suit a hearing, the Supreme Court declared that Texas did not demonstrate “a judicially cognizable interest in how these other states conduct their elections.” Under Federalism states decide for themselves how to run their own elections. Perhaps the justices believed what they heard on NBC or CNN and concluded that this is not an important issue because there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing in the election. Therefore, they could flippantly declare that Texas has no business in messing with other people’s elections and refuse to take seriously the legal views of the leaders of 18 state governments.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case was sheer arrogance and reflected the left-leaning leadership of a Chief Justice ready to step in and rescue an important, anti-constitutional position currently being legislated by the court. It began with his saving the Obamacare assault on constitutionality by claiming that the government’s power of taxation justifies a state takeover of a major private industry in an otherwise market economy. The Constitution does not countenance central government management of the economy.
The Texas case most certainly does have legal standing. Standing is simply that a party can demonstrate to the Court sufficient connection to and harm from another state’s law or action to justify that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists, inter alia, when a party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action of another state. The damage suffered will continue unless the court grants relief. The party has standing because damage has been done and because of the conditions for which relief is being sought.
American citizens are sophisticated enough to understand the idea that the external effects arising from a situation, condition, or action brought about by one party can adversely affect another party. Could there be more real or pressing harm than that caused by rogue states destroying the electoral integrity of a national democracy? Because of the strong-arm tactics of election officials and ballot stuffers in these four states, the United States has installed in national offices an illegitimate president, an illegitimate vice president, and a political party that has announced its intention to change or eliminate the Constitution of the United States. The damage or harm arising from the illegal actions of election administrators in these democratic states arises from their announced intention to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Electoral College, add additional states to the union, nationalize the healthcare industry, change the congressional rules of governance, nationalize the energy sector, cancel major parts of the Bill of Rights, and so on. It is apparent that the justices of the Supreme Court failed to pay attention to the words they spoke when they took their oath of office. The SCOTUS has been under a cloud for decades because it became rogue in legislating the deaths of millions of unborn Americans from the bench. Now it clothes itself in ignominy by looking the other way when action is called for to save the constitution of the United States from socialist extermination.
change the world if the Democrats control the senate.
No one asked the Supreme Court to decide the election. They needed to investigate and decide just who had decided the election. The 74 million voters who voted for President Trump did not decide the election, nor did the smaller number of voters who voted for IP Biden. The election was decided by the few million ballots illegally and strategically submitted to overcome the Biden deficit. Once counted, those illegitimate votes were “stacked” in the piles of legitimate votes and recounted. Surprise! Joe Biden got more votes. And he could have had any number of additional votes manufactured to complete the coup on the administration of a legally elected president of the United States.
A few years ago, U.S. business schools were talking about the new manufacturing system in the country, the “just in time” system. Critical inputs of production were to be delivered at the very moment they were to be used in the production process. This model of efficiency was to be adopted by the planners of the election fraud. The Covid infection justified, after the media’s preoccupation with all things pandemic, the Democratic Party’s demanding a postal electoral system easily subject to fraud. In critical democratic electoral strongholds one could monitor the results and, whenever the democratic candidate fell behind, sufficient votes could be produced to swing the total in the actual loser’s favor. This was done internally by changing the vote count (“flipping” the votes from the candidate currently ahead) electronically or by adjusting the human count. It could also be done externally by delivering midnight truckloads of fraudulent ballots.
Incidentally, before the election it had been anticipated and well-advertised that a “blue wave” of democratic electoral victories was imminent. But the wave never occurred. The Republicans systematically won state and national elections that improved their ballot-box results. But when illegitimate ballots were filled out in huge numbers in Joe Biden’s favor, the writers marked only the presidential box, failing to fill out the complete ballot. Therefore, the democrats must explain some strange election results. Why would a majority of voters fill out their ballot for Republican candidates, but then vote for Joe Biden for president? How else would you get the results we got?
Finally, the Supreme Court hated the implication that in the four states charged in the Texas case, their taking action would have disenfranchised 10 million votes in the four voter fraud states. They showed no concern whatever, in fact they mockingly disdained the 74 million votes disenfranchised by the corrupt election results.
The Supreme Court said that had they accepted the Texas case, the transition would have been delayed and a constitutional crisis would have been the result. They were, it is rumored, terribly afraid of the potential rioting of the leftist BLM and Antifa. But to refuse the case resulted in a fraudulent outcome with the loser of the election being installed in the Presidency of the United States. The Court must assume that what Americans don’t know won’t hurt them, or that what they are forced to forget will just disappear from history. The constitutional crisis now ultimately becomes the potential for the nullification and destruction of the constitution. The position of the Supreme Court is untenable and ridiculous. Unfortunately, it is also tragic.
The new oath of office for national public servants: “I solemnly swear that I will defund the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and Democratic.”
Calm down now, folks! This new oath is just humor. It is ironic humor because of the element of truth involved. The caption to the picture just above it, however, is anything but humor.