Repeatedly in the past year – before the election, when Democrats put into place unconstitutional election rules, and after the election, when people begged it to review fraud claims – a majority on the United States Supreme Court went through mental gymnastics to create reasons not to hear claims about the 2020 election. They did this 状语从句even though there was already precedence from the top court in Bush v. Gore 2000. Why? Why the staunch refusal by the Supreme Court?
Just now entering the debate is former military intelligence Captain Seth Keshel (ret.), 定语从句whose findings may force the Supreme Court to grapple with questions about the election. Keshel’s earthshaking scientific data election report contends 宾语从句that President Trump probably won seven states 定语从句that had been called for Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Minnesota). 状语从句If Kassel’s numbers are correct, that gives Trump 321 electoral college votes, well above the 270 needed to win the White House. Maybe that will give the Supreme Court reason to get involved in the fraudulent and duplicitous election of our president. For now, though, the Supreme Court believes the election was “stolen, fair-and-square.”
The question is 表语从句whether the justices are cowards, crooks, or compromised, for those three choices seem to be the only way to explain their resolute refusal to make any decisions regarding the Presidential Election of 2020. This constitutes a historic failure on their part, for the Court is refusing to be a co-equal branch of the federal government. Nor is the role Republicans as of them – reviewing the law connected to possible election fraud – new ground. With 2000’s Bush v. Gore, there is legal precedent for them to act.
The answer to the question about 宾语从句what drives their passivity is an important one. One can argue successfully 宾语从句that the January 6 “Stop The Steal” rally, 定语从句which continued with a rowdy protest on Capitol Hill, resulted because of the justices’ lack of integrity and/or guts. Thanks to their blatant disassociation with being a coequal branch with the Presidency and Congress, the Court has lost enormous respect from half of America.
Are the Supreme Court members simply cowards? Did last summer’s violence leave them too frightened for themselves and their family members to act? Perhaps they feared the BLM/Antifa showing up as a mob on their front doorsteps in peaceful Georgetown, Virginia, or Chevy Chase, Maryland. Or maybe they were worried that Deep State operatives might go after their children or grandchildren at their schools and colleges. After all, a mob showed up at Tucker Carlson’s home three years ago, 状语从句when Tucker was on the air, 分词状语forcing his wife to hide in the closet until police arrived.
Rumors (unproven) have been flying 同位语从句that Chief Justice Roberts referred to the violence last summer as a reason to refuse cases 分词定语involving the 2020 election. So maybe, as individuals, parents, and grandparents, the majority of the Court did not want to hear election cases 状语从句because they were afraid. If so, BLM/Antifa taught us 宾语从句that raw intimidation works, at least as to a cowering Supreme Court.
One must also ask 宾语从句whether the majority of the Supreme Court justices are just 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 – and I hope 宾语从句it is untrue.
However, we have learned so many awful things over the last six years and especially during Trump’s presidency 状语从句that, frankly, nothing should surprise us anymore. From the six battleground states, there were obviously enough questions, doubts, and sworn witnesses to at least justify hearing evidence in the cases – and yet the Supreme Court was fine with lower courts dismissing the cases unheard.
Moreover, given the Democrats’ assertion that they won in 2020, why are they so frantic to block any forensic election audits? There was so much smoke out there in terms of possible election irregularities 状语从句that the Supreme Court had ample reason to see 宾语从句if there was in fact a roaring blaze. But still, a majority of the Court refused to act. Was crookedness the reason?
And then there’s the last question, which is whether compromised Supreme Court justices are being blackmailed. There are plenty of rumors about Chief Justice Roberts 状语从句when it comes to his children’s adoption and his potential relationship with Jeffrey Epstein (although the latter rumor seems to have been reliably debunked). Roberts’s decisions have long been questionable. He flipped his vote on Obamacare at the last minute, 分词状语allowing Obamacare to become law by a 5-4 vote. The late, great Justice Anthony Scalia believed 宾语从句that Roberts flipped for unprincipled reasons.
One can also hypothesize 宾语从句that justices aren’t protecting themselves but others near and dear to them. We just don’t know. But something must explain 宾语从句why at least six justices on the Supreme Court refused even to review cases 定语从句that had been supported by a mountain of affidavits and other documentary and video evidence.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the cases concerning presidential election integrity. They especially wanted to hear cases 分词状语looking at Democrat D.C. lawyers and Deep State operatives overriding state election laws.
However, even the supposedly conservative Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett refused to hear the evidence. President Trump and MAGA nation were shocked by Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett’s silence. They appear to have been “frozen” at the free-throw line. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence同位语从句 that Kavanaugh and Barrett have the youngest, most vulnerable children.
And of course, the Supreme Court may have been worried about issuing a decision only to have the entire progressive half of America – including in the government and the military – ignore it (as Biden has done when it comes to rent moratoriums, despite admitting they’re unconstitutional). So, they decided it best to do nothing. Unfortunately, that scenario is very possible. And very sad.
The political parties, billionaires, Progressives, and the Deep State, like feral animals, will do what they do 状语从句because politics isn’t for sissies. We Americans, though, always believed 宾语从句that the Supreme Court would be the adult in the room and bring law and reason to bear – and stop people’s partisan passions. It is the Supreme Court, more than any American institution, that ultimately failed in a historic way.
History will decide whether, in 2020, 宾语从句the Court sank to the same ignominious level it occupied when it decided the Dred Scott, Plessey, or Korematsu cases. Those decisions also created outcomes much worse than anything 定语从句the Supreme Court was trying to avoid.
As individual states try to clean up their election laws to prevent future fraud, we can anticipate more court challenges 定语从句that will once again end up in the Supreme Court’s lap. Hopefully, corruption and/or cowardice will not rear its ugly head. All 定语从句we ask is 表语从句that the Court hears the evidence!状语从句 If the justices again refuse to do so, half of the American population will give up on our constitutional system. The Supreme Court cannot duck this forever.
Follow Me 👉🏿
