They appear to be cowards or crooks or compromised. Cowards, crooks, or compromised seems to be the only way to explain the decision-making of the United States Supreme Court. The Court’s unwillingness to make any decisions regarding the presidential election of 2020 is a historic failure. These last twelve months have seen the Court refuse to do its duty. The Court refused to be a co-equal branch of the federal government.
With the Bush v. Gore of 2000, there is legal precedent. Just twenty short years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took Bush v. Gore, a presidential election case, so the precedent was there. Over this last year, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address election law questions before the election last summer, right before the election, right after the election, and even prior to the inauguration in January. On all these occasions, the majority of the Supreme Court judges refused to hear any case 分词定语dealing with the presidential election. They stuck their heads in the sand and acted 状语从句as if they had no role.
One could argue, successfully, that January 6 on the Washington Mall happened because of the lack of integrity and guts in the Supreme Court. Because of their blatant disassociation with being a coequal branch with the presidency and Congress, the Court has lost enormous respect from half of America. This is dangerous to a democratic republic. One must ask, why would they be willing to do this? Are they cowards, crooks, compromised, or something else? Can these be the only answers to this seemingly impotent Supreme Court?
Are the Supreme Court members simply cowards? Did they get scared so much by the violence last summer, 状语从句that they felt for their own and their family members’ safety? Did the violence, looting, burning, assaults, and even deaths 定语从句that occurred during the Antifa and BLM insurrections last summer simply scare individual members of the Court? Were they simply frightened from hearing any cases 分词定语dealing with the 2020 presidential election? Did they not want BLM/Antifa showing up as a mob on their front doorsteps in Georgetown? Did they not want Deep State operatives casing their children’s or grandchildren’s school or college? These mobs have done this before, so there is a precedent. Mobs showed up at Tucker Carlson’s home last summer 状语从句when Tucker was on the air and forced Tucker’s wife to hide in the closet until police arrived. It has been reported主语从句 that Chief Justice Roberts even referred to the violence last summer as a reason for not accepting cases involving the 2020 election. Whether these reports were accurate, we don’t know. So maybe as individuals, parents, and grandparents, the majority of the Court did not want to hear any election cases 分词状语based solely on fear. Were they frightened from doing their constitutional duty?
Are the majority of the Supreme Court just obviously crooks? Are they taking bribes from Deep State operatives? Are they getting kickbacks or financial gain from Progressive billionaires by refusing to hear legitimate election questions? This one seems the most doubtful…I hope. However, we have learned so many awful things the last six years, and especially during Trump’s presidency, 状语从句that nothing should surprise us anymore. The Progressive movement along with the Deep State criminals in D.C. has shocked us with名词从句 how far it will go against their political enemies. Progressives, unlike RINOs, know宾语从句 that it is a political war, and they fight to win. From the five to six purple battleground states, there were obviously enough questions, doubts, and sworn witnesses to at least hear the evidence in the cases. There was so much smoke out there in terms of possible election irregularities 状语从句that the Supreme Court had ample reason and cause to see if there was in fact a roaring blaze. But yet a majority of the Court refused to hear it. Was crookedness the reason? Why did they stick their heads in the sand?
Were members of the Supreme Court being compromised? Were they being blackmailed? Did the Progressive movement and Deep State figures have “the goods” on enough justices? This one is interesting and not so far-fetched. Roberts did flip his vote on Obamacare at the last minute, 定语从句which allowed Obamacare to become law by a 5-4 vote. Maybe enough justices got caught doing the wrong thing 状语从句that they just could not act according to their legal conscience but had to cave to compromise. Possibly it was not the justices’ behavior at all, but their children’s or grandchildren’s. 状语从句If one of the justices has a son or grandson 定语从句whose behavior resembles that of Hunter Biden, that could become a blackmailable issue. We just don’t know. But something must explain 宾语从句why at least six justices on the Supreme Court refused to even hear the plethora of evidence. Only four justices are needed for a case to come before them, and a question about presidential election laws was not important enough for the Court to hear it? Very doubtful. Just does not pass the constitutional smell test.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the cases concerning presidential election integrity. They especially wanted to hear cases 分词定语involving state election laws being over ridden by Democrat D.C. lawyers and Deep State operatives. An example of this was Pennsylvania. State legislatures decide state election laws; they cannot be overridden by outside lobbyists and people 定语从句who intimate from the D.C. Beltway. But there must be four members of the Court 定语从句who want to hear the case. Even Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett refused to hear the evidence.
President Trump and MAGA nation were shocked by Kavanaugh’s and Barrett’s silence. Kavanaugh and Barrett appear to have been “frozen” at the free throw line. It is noteworthy 不定式主语to mention that Kavanaugh and Barrett have the youngest children, and maybe they were frightened for their safety. Maybe. It is just so extremely odd 主语从句that this multitude of legitimate cases from these multitude of battleground states with this multitude of evidence did not get enough Supreme Court members even to want to see what happened. They should, if for no other reason than to correct it 状语从句so it will not happen again in 2022 or 2024.
Maybe the Supreme Court was worried what the evidence might show, and therefore that they might have to make a tough decision. And maybe they knew 宾语从句that half of America, along with the Progressives, and the Deep State in D.C., would simply ignore their verdict. Maybe they were worried that if they had to make a historic decision, the decision would be ignored. So they decided it best to do nothing. Maybe.
This is not as much an indictment of a political party, a business, the Progressives, or the Deep State. It is the Supreme Court 强调句who ultimately failed in a historic way. Why the justices failed, we just do not know at this time.
History and historians will in the future write 宾语从句whether the Court’s lack of decision-making and lack of courage were as bad as the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions. History will decide, but only if those historians are balanced and fair-minded. Those decisions ruined the Court’s credibility for a long time and even created future events定语从句 that were far worse. Only time will tell 宾语从句if it will again be that disastrous. But over half of the 50 individual states are now rewriting state election laws 状语从句so the 2020 election abuses will not happen again. The state of Georgia has already signed its own rewrite into law. States such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin are soon to follow.
There will certainly be court challenges to these impending state laws 定语从句that tighten up election procedures 状语从句so fraud will not happen…again. Without question, without uncertainty, these upcoming cases (especially in the purple battleground states) will once again end up in the lap of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Thomas said this would happen, and it has happened.
Nobility and courage will shine 状语从句the next time the Supreme Court gets a chance to do the right thing by at least hearing the evidence — at the very least, reviewing the evidence. If they refuse once again, things will get even worse — for half of the American population and most certainly worse for the credibility of the United States Supreme Court.
Follow Me 👉🏿
