https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/the_supreme_courts_day_of_reckoning_is_coming.html
The election of 2020 is going to lay bare the dereliction of the Supreme Court for all to see. The COVD-19 pandemic gave numerous state election officials an excuse to implement far-reaching changes to our election processes. Those changes obviously made our systems vulnerable to fraud. States implemented massive mail-in balloting at the same time they relaxed ballot security and voter identification. They even extended the voting periods — to give the criminals more time to commit their fraud.
All these changes were unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly gives the various state legislatures the authority to define how their elections will be conducted — not state election officials. Election officials are only empowered to conduct elections within the rules set forth by their respective legislatures — except, apparently, during a pandemic. There must be a pandemic emanation hidden in a penumbra of the Constitution we didn’t know about. 分词状语Alarmed that the changes would invite fraud, various organizations filed lawsuits to stop the changes.
The Supreme Court declined to get involved. It ruled 宾语从句that the plaintiffs lacked standing because nobody had been harmed — yet. Since the election hadn’t happened, nobody was damaged, and there was no case to be heard. They were thinking like a civil court, not the defenders of the Constitution 定语从句they are sworn to be. It was a cowardly way to stay out of the political controversy. Unfortunately, it also missed an opportunity to defend the Constitution, 定语从句which was clearly under attack.
After all the ad-hoc changes had been allowed to stand, the election of 2020 saw an unprecedented number of irregularities — too many to ignore. Election observers were banned from observing the election. Counting stopped in the middle of the night and then restarted after boxes of ballots were mysteriously found. There are reports of ballots being driven across state lines — by the truckload. There were even precincts 定语从句that counted more ballots than there were registered voters! A number of states filed lawsuits against the states in 定语从句which these irregularities occurred.
Even though the Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of cases between states, it again refused to get involved. They ruled 宾语从句that Texas couldn’t sue Pennsylvania 状语从句because Texans had their votes accurately counted and therefore were not harmed by Pennsylvania. Apparently 动名词主语having the wrong president crammed down the throats of Texans is not considered “harm.” Given the flood of illegal aliens President Asterisk has invited — and the crime 定语从句that has accompanied them — would the justices consider Texas “harmed” now?
A number of other cases were dropped 状语从句because the court considered them “moot.” The election had been certified and nothing was going to change that — hence no need to look at the evidence. In the immortal words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, “At this point what difference does it make?”
The court seems to have three distinct voting blocs:
- The oath keepers — These are the justices that are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution even状语从句 if it means they’ll have to endure attacks. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch make up this bloc.
- The jellyfish — These are the justices 定语从句that lack the spine to face controversy. They’re more concerned about defending the court than the Constitution. Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh make up this bloc.
- The subversives — These are the justices that have been using penumbras and emanations to rewrite the constitution in pursuit of social engineering. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer make up this bloc.
It’s rumored主语从句 that only three justices wanted to hear the 2020 election lawsuits. Does anyone doubt 宾语从句that it was those who comprise the “oath keepers” bloc?
Now, Chief Justice Roberts has placed his court in a trick-box. By choosing to stay out of the election controversy, John Roberts has bet the court’s reputation that the mysteries of the election would remain mysteries. 状语从句As wagers go, it was not a particularly smart one. The election involved millions of ballots, tens of thousands of election workers, and thousands of counties. If there was fraud, there is too much evidence, in too many hands, to stay hidden.
Tellingly, the Democrats are scrambling to keep the truth hidden, but it’s slowly coming out. State-sponsored forensic audits, as well as private investigations, are turning over the stones. We’ll likely know the truth by the end of this year. 状语从句If it turns out that the election was stolen, the Supreme Court will be exposed as derelict, weak, and useless. It will all be because the jellyfish bloc doesn’t understand the psychology of bullies.
The Supreme Court avoided involvement in the election状语从句 because they wanted to stay out of the controversy — they didn’t want to be bullied by the Democrats or the media. There are other possible motives, but they’re even more disturbing. 动名词Cowing to bullies will not avoid conflict. Bullies prey on weakness. One has to either stand up to them eventually or accept servitude. Every kid on the playground has learned that lesson by the 8th grade. Apparently, John Roberts hasn’t. 状语从句Each time Chief Justice Roberts has acceded to the bullies, he’s made the court’s future challenge greater.
动名词Ruling that last-minute ad-hoc election changes were unconstitutional would have been relatively straightforward — but the court didn’t. 动名词Hearing the election fraud evidence and adjudicating the result would have created a political crap-storm — but it would have been the right thing to do. What will become of the court’s reputation状语从句 if it becomes obvious that the election was stolen and rather than stand up, it sat down?
An April poll by Rasmussen Reports found that 51% of the population believes that fraud affected the election outcome. Does Roberts grasp the significance of that number? It’s the percentage of the population定语从句 who believe the Supreme Court was derelict in defending the Constitution. If John Roberts wanted to defend the court, perhaps he should have considered the pursuit of the truth rather than avoidance of controversy.
A recent Ipsos poll found 宾语从句that 63% of the public thinks it’s time to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices. The public isn’t stupid. It recognizes 宾语从句that the Supreme Court needs to be taken to the woodshed. The next few months will say a lot about the Supreme Court. Will it correct course, or will it embrace servitude to the mob?
Follow Me 👉🏿
