SCOTUS refuses Texas lawsuit for lack of standing
You can read some of the details at Legal Insurrection. Excerpt from the opinion:
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
Earlier today I wrote in a comment that there was a conservative argument SCOTUS could use for refusing to take the case, which is that “it has to do with whether there is standing for one state to challenge another over these particular issues, or whether it violates the federalism principle.”
That was a quick comment, but I want to elaborate a bit more. I have a law degree but it’s ancient, and I’m not a lawyer or any kind of expert on election law. However, I have an interest in law and I’ve thought about it a good deal, especially the philosophical and psychological questions connected with law. So ever since the morning of November 4th, that’s the perspective from which I’ve looked at the question of what the legal remedies might be for the huge number of terrible problems connected with this 2020 election and its aftermath.
How do judges make decisions? Of course they look at the law, but few questions of law are 100% cut and dried with answers that are completely obvious. Other elements come heavily into play, among them judicial philosophy and the judge’s hunches about what the larger effects of any decision might be. Judges are human, and there are probably personality quirks that enter into it as well.
The election cases of 2020 have consequences that I believe most of the SCOTUS justices and perhaps all of them find frightening. The rift in the country is serious and vast, and it is my sense that they don’t want to be the ones blamed for bad things happening as a result of their decisions. Perhaps they would deny that, but that’s just my gut feeling (I think it’s especially true for John Roberts, but I think it’s true to a certain extent for many or even all of them).
Of course, even issuing no ruling on the legal questions raised in a case, and refusing to give relief – not hearing this case, for example – has consequences. It’s a form of decision. But it’s a passive type of decision that allows people to tell themselves they’re not responsible for what happens. They may indeed be fooling themselves. But passivity can be attractive when faced with something very tough. And this is very tough, because no matter what the Court does, half the country is going to be very very angry indeed.
That’s the situation we face, and that’s the situation that in my opinion probably made the SCOTUS justices want to run the other way. So if there are legal arguments they can find that allow them to do that – and in this Texas case there were such arguments – most of them will grasp those arguments as a lifeline. That is why I have been wary from the start about any legal remedies coming in these 2020 election cases.
You might ask, but what of 2000 and Bush v. Gore? Didn’t SCOTUS make a decision? Yes, but recall that in Bush v. Gore SCOTUS issued a stay against a recount. Essentially, they froze the proceedings and said “enough already”:
On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida’s counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately. On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay for Bush, with Scalia citing “irreparable harm” that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast “a needless and unjustified cloud” over Bush’s legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.” Oral arguments were scheduled for December 11.
In a per curiam decision, the Court first ruled 7–2 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (The case had also been argued on the basis of Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist.) Second, the Court ruled 5–4 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida’s electors in Tallahassee. The majority held that no alternative method could be established within the discretionary December 12 “safe harbor” deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5, which the Florida Supreme Court had stated that the Florida Legislature intended to meet.
In Bush v. Gore it was also not an interstate dispute, unlike the present Texas case. That matters, particularly in terms of the question of applying the Equal Protection Clause. If I’m understanding Bush v. Gore correctly, in 2000 the Equal Protection question in the case involved an intrastate matter: comparing counties within a single state, Florida. In 2020, the Court was asked to deal with an interstate Equal Protection matter and compare states. And yet (to the best of my admittedly shallow knowledge, anyway) states have ordinarily been allowed to use quite different voting rules from other states as long as each state meets the requirements for federal elections set forth in the US Constitution. Otherwise, each state is allowed quite a bit of leeway in setting its own rules.
So I am not surprised by this ruling and in fact I would have been surprised had it gone otherwise. I wish I could be more optimistic about the legal prospects, but I just don’t think there will be a legal remedy issued for the utter disaster that has been Election 2020.
And by “utter disaster” I don’t simply mean a Trump loss and a Biden win, although that aspect definitely upsets me. I am talking about the disastrous process by which the safeguards and protections that reassure us that our elections are fair and valid have been systematically stripped away in many many states. That has left us with a situation that was an invitation to election fraud and/or to the strong suspicion of election fraud. Not only was there a vulnerability to fraud and an opportunity for fraud, but without those proper security measures, fraud was always going to be alleged by whatever party was the election loser. I am firmly convinced that, had Trump been the winner, Democrats would have been screaming “fraud!” and suing in the courts, and there would also have been rioting by the left.
What actually happened, though, was that the Biden win occurred under especially suspicious circumstances. It wasn’t just the enormous number of insecure mail-in ballots; it was also the late-night stoppage in four swing states when Trump was way ahead, the throwing out and/or distancing of many observers, the ballot counting that continued afterwards and went so tremendously heavily for Biden, the insecure voting machine programs (known to be insecure even before the election), and other suspicious anomalies such as the gains by the GOP in the House that seemed to contradict a Biden win and Trump’s sweep of bellweather counties despite the Biden win.
So we had a perfect storm of suspicious occurrences, and now we have a house utterly divided. Can that house stand? I don’t know, but I certainly don’t think we can look to the court system to assist us in finding our way through this.
The court has declared that elections in America now is nothing but a contest of whichever side stuffs the most ballots wins it would be stupid for republicans not do the same from now on, the red counties in supposed blue states just legislate to abolish all safeguards and stuff as much ballots as possible themselves, since the court literally says it’s okay to have way more ballots than people living there, who’s stopping them from stuffing millions of ballots in a county that only has a population of a few thousand? what exactly is the difference between a 200% turnout that constantly happening in swing states or 20000%, to me it’s all the same. 2020 is the year ballot stuffing is legalised in America and became part of our life, republicans better throw their bullshit integrity away and adapt or preparing to not winning anything again and allowing America descends into Soviet Union in the hands of democrats.
Failed “leaders” at every level have preemptively capitulated to the brownshirts.
A point of barbed Rebellious Irony from a tweet by Michelle Malkin:
Michelle Malkin
@michellemalkin
Illegal aliens, refugees, foreigners, and criminals all have no problem gaining standing in court.
But American workers, American voters, and American states?
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
1:51 PM · Dec 12, 2020
============
Sign O’ The Times.
Two Words.
Dred Scott
I’m disappointed by the decision but not at all surprised. As you point out Neo, I don’t think anybody wants to be blamed for what I think will be an inevitable and ugly reckoning in such a deeply polarized country. It is maddening however to see the media almost completely ignore two of the biggest scandals in our history (the Russian collusion nonsense and this election disaster). I feel like I’m living in a parallel universe. I’m not sure if our ruling class is fully aware of the level of anger in the country or if they just don’t care.
I was never very optimistic that the SCOTUS would face up to the challenge; but, I was hopeful.
Most legal pundits assumed that they would duck it, and assumed that they would use the pretext that they did use. I guess you have to be legally ignorant to believe that if certain states violate their own laws, and constitutional principles, to manipulate a national election, that does not provide status to seek remedy to every citizen. Of all of the legal challenges that have been brought forth, I don’t think a single one has been decided on the merits of the available evidence.
Some Conservatives legal minds have said it was the right decision because of the consequences of reversing the result. Others have said that you can’t have states running to SCOTUS every time they are not happy with an election result. How about if 17 or 18 states join together?
So, we have a graphic illustration that we are not a nation of laws. The side that can pose the biggest threat to tranquility, wins.
I suppose that the Powers assume that people who feel that the election was stolen will grump and grouse, and get over it. That remains to be seen. They are probably right; but, patience does have its limits. This Court rebuff coming on the heels of revelations that DOJ started, and paused, an investigation into the Biden family corruption well over a year ago is going to be a severe test of the limits of patience.
Tonight Giuliani said that H. Biden’s lap top directly implicates Joe Biden from way back; and presumably that is common knowledge in some circles. I assume that lap top will disappear like the Clinton team’s Iphones.
States with borders? A novel concept. Perhaps there is a way that interstate commerce is affected. Also, while a double-edged scalpel, there is always the Twilight Amendment and progressive policies. Finally, we could go full liberal: hunt some witches; judge some warlocks; throw a baby, two, several hundred million on the barbie; and protest, too.
that H. Biden’s lap top directly implicates Joe Biden
Transnational influence peddling? Obamacares evasion? Perhaps social progress: pedophilia without borders.
How about if 17 or 18 states join together?
Minority rights? Democracy is a majority construct, until it isn’t. #DemosDeniedRightsAtTwilight #HateLovesAbortion
Dave
You are one hundred percent wrong. What they have just allowed completely prevents anyone from stuffing boxes. On the Republican side that is. As of this point 1/2 the body politic, the press, and now the Supreme Court. Have either implicitly or explicitly allowed this to occur. But it will NEVER be allowed across the isle. The press will never allow it. So its game over on the voting front. As this rot slowly takes over the rest of the states.
So this leave the question what next? We are banned from talking about cultural issues in public spaces. The press has blatantly taken a side. And they are using COVID and other measures to prevent gathering unless for the right “kind” of protests. That pretty much covers our First Amendment “guarantees” right there
So you can either accept it. Or begin thinking of what your other options are. Let me be clear. None are good.
n.n. I guess you are making some kind of point with your cryptic comments, but for the life of me I don’t know what.
That’s ok.
SCOTUS made the right call here, although naturally I am horrified at the prospect of a Biden/Harris presidency.
Here’s an interesting anomaly. There are only two presidential elections where the guy who won the presidency lost seats in Congress: 1960 and 2020. And even liberal historians now grudgingly concede that Nixon really won 1960. Recall that it was extremely close and there were totally credible reports of voter fraud coming out of Illinois and Texas. Nixon chose not to litigate, but he really was the winner of the 1960 election. The GOP gained seats in that election but somehow JFK won.
Same thing sixty years later. The guy who won lost seats in the Congress. Hmmmm.
For those who are frustrated that the Supreme Court punted, you have to understand that there would be a profoundly negative cost to them taking the case and ruling in Trump’s favor. The real tragedy in our country is that we don’t have ballot safeguards and we don’t have any real remedies at law to address voting shenanigans. As I read one election law expert say, “Once the ballots get into the ballot box, it’s virtually impossible to get them out.” The Democrats know this, so they stuff ballot boxes. Republicans tend not to cheat.
A few points.
1) I find it amazing that due to Jeffery Toobin and his lack for basic morals. We are aware that not just the Democrats. But the Democrats and press together war gamed this identical scenario. What are the odds that their polling was completely wrong on every front? Yet the sole exception of Biden beating Trump in exactly the same way it actually occurred? It makes no sense and the fact that they barely pretend otherwise is a poor precursor of whats to come.
2) The game now becomes that the Republicans must now win every election. And the democrats need to win only once. Once an area is in democratic control there will be no need to relinquish it. Simply ramp the machine up. Stall, obfuscate and deny until certifications are required. And no one will have any standing to prevent it. Repeat cycle.
In future ‘elections’, the right contesting with the left to see which side can manufacture the most fraudulent votes won’t work. You don’t beat a thief by out stealing them. Not without just becoming a bigger thief. You beat the thief by putting them out of business.
Now that seven of the S.C. justices have revealed themselves to be fair weather friends of the Constitution, I fully expect them to continue to punt away their Constitutional responsibilities.
As exactly who has ‘standing’ to sue in a massive fraudulent national election?
On Jan. 20th we will be certain of the extent of their courage and certain of their fitness for the formerly exalted office they held. For if they stay true to this course of betrayal, they will have murdered both the Constitution and their very reason for that office’s existance.
A successful and blatantly obvious theft of the Presidency and a ‘high’ court who spits upon the rule of law puts consent of the governed into its grave.
This is just the beginning of the tyranny the Left plans to impose upon us.
If I were Harris and Pelosi I’d be wary of appearing on the inauguration platform. 4th Generation Warfare snipers wouldn’t target Biden but those in the line of succession under him. Both traitors but especially mass murderer Pelosi have much to answer for… fellow mass murderers Newsome, Cuomo, Murphy, Wolf and Whitmer as well.
“The Times found 14 states where more than half of total deaths occurred in facilities for the elderly. It was 55 percent in Connecticut, 57 percent in Colorado, North Carolina and Kentucky, 58 percent in Virginia, 59 percent in Massachusetts, 61 percent in Delaware, 66 percent in Pennsylvania, 73 percent in Rhode Island and 80 percent in West Virginia and Minnesota.”
https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/blame-governors-for-coronavirus-deaths-in-nursing-homes-goodwin/
“Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are investigating five Democratic governors for their decision to mandate nursing homes to take untested, if not COVID-19 positive, patients during the pandemic.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf.
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/972323?section=us&keywords=house-oversight-elderly-vulnerable&year=2020&month=06&date=15&id=972323
It will not end well for them.
The election cases of 2020 have consequences that I believe most of the SCOTUS justices and perhaps all of them find frightening. The rift in the country is serious and vast, and it is my sense that they don’t want to be the ones blamed for bad things happening as a result of their decisions. Perhaps they would deny that, but that’s just my gut feeling (I think it’s especially true for John Roberts, but I think it’s true to a certain extent for many or even all of them).
neo: That’s as I read it, though I would go farther I call it cowardice.
Everyone knows that if the Supremes ruled such that dominoes fell and Trump won, the country would be burning from coast to coast for months. A2020 would just have been a warm-up.
From there things could have progressed to a real civil war. There is no telling.
Of course this allows the Democrats to blackmail the rest of the country. Was this part of the 2020 rioting strategy? Is Obama the hidden general calling the shots for the Party and the Radicals?
Robert Barnes tweets to remind us of Trumps last Constitutional Card to play: call on Congress. Alabama Representative Mo Brooks says the R interest there is swelling! while the R Senate remains…enigmatic.
People—just change them! Barnes’ tweet from two hours ago:
Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law
·
2h
Last Constitutional remedy for Trump remains Congress not certifying electors from contested states when they convene on January 6. 12th Amendment provides for House vote by state delegation. Electoral Count Act provides for objection by 1 House member joined by 1 Senator to vote
Rep Mo Brooks inspires, with Seb Gorka December 8th
https://rumble.com/vbp2vv-biden-stole-millions-of-votes.-rep.-mo-brooks-with-sebastian-gorka-on-ameri.html
Something else that I noticed while poking around other blogs.
The group that has been trying to sell everyone on the idea that there was “no evidence” of fraud has been oddly quiet.I have not scene them on Facebook, or in blog comments for a couple of weeks.
Yet suddenly today they are back in full force. Now that they know no one has any legal standing to attempt to prove fraud. They can use the entire “there was NO fraud” line again. Its actually kind of fascinating in a macabre way. In that there is no attempt at any time to explain the issues involved. Or convince anyone they were wrong. They have all used the the chanting method. Of simply repeating the same thing over and over.
Half of country got sexually assaulted on November 4th and none willing to stand up to do something about it (including me) we deserve to be oppressed because we are all freaking cowards.
I guess the Fat Lady has done sung.
Michael Towns,
“For those who are frustrated that the Supreme Court punted, you have to understand that there would be a profoundly negative cost to them taking the case and ruling in Trump’s favor.”
The greatest test of character is when doing the right thing comes with a profoundly negative personal cost.
huxley,
“Everyone knows that if the Supremes ruled such that dominoes fell and Trump won, the country would be burning from coast to coast for months.”
Trump invoking the Insurrection Act followed by if necessary a declaration of Martial Law and suspension of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus would put a stop to riots right quick.
Dave,
Not so. The prudent course of action is to wait for Jan. 20th. And to mentally prepare for massive non-violent protests. If met with brute force… then conduct 4th Generation Warfare.
Civil War is only exceeded in horror by race and religious wars. It is not to be entered into lightly.
“….had Trump been the winner, Democrats would have been screaming “fraud!” and suing in the courts, and there would also have been rioting by the left.”
Other than the usual assortment of Dem-lackey judges, the courts would not have offered respite for the Left because it almost certainly could not have been demonstrated that the Trump side commited fraud. There would have been a bevy of lower court decisions in the Left’s favor, but at some point the appeal would have reached SCOTUS where the Fab Nine would be faced with a similar predicament regarding the effect of their decision.
As to the Left rioting, that’s their default setting: tantrums when they don’t get what they want. Riots, however, are entirely a local matter, not subject to court approval or disapproval, and something Citizens can resolve independently of judicial involvement.
We’re now on a road this country has never traveled before and I suspect it will be a very rocky one with a great many unforeseen twists, turns and missing bridges.
We’re now on a road this country has never traveled before and I suspect it will be a very rocky one with a great many unforeseen twists, turns and missing bridges.
I cannot disagree. But as the great wiseman said ‘we will see’.
Alan Dershowitz thought that Texas did have standing, which led him to conclude that the Court majority were motivated by fear. This bodes ill for the other pending cases. I suppose that even if they become a minority on a packed Court, the conservatives will still have their SCOTUS paychecks. Plus they’ll be able to write noble dissenting opinions.
Speaking of passive decisions leading to Court packing, this sets up nicely for the Georgia runoffs.
GOP of Texas chair, LTC Allen West minces no word on the Supreme Court Refusing to do it’s responsibility and hear the Texas case in #Election2020
6 minute Interview with Joe Pags https://rumble.com/vbtb5j-gop-chair-of-tx-ltc-allen-west-reacts-to-scotus-shirking-duty.html?mref=1kztv&mrefc=5
A lot of loose talk on here regarding SCOTUS’ responsibility or moral obligation. The Supreme Court literally has NO authority to tell a state how to certify its results. The Constitution explicitly leaves that power to the states. For SCOTUS to swoop in and tell the four states what to do would be a supreme breach.
I completely sympathize with everyone’s feelings. I don’t want Biden to be sworn in. And I do believe that there was election chicanery. But asking the Supreme Court to destroy federalism (or to shred the Constitution) isn’t the answer here. By refusing to hear Texas’ case, the Supreme Court is actually acting in the best conservative tradition.
RETORT for Michael (as seen at Instapundit): “Democracy is two [wolves] Corrupt Blue States and a [sheep] Red State deciding who to elect for President“
[- – – read overstrike- – -]
I understood that the entire purpose of SCOTUS original jurisdiction for issues between the states was to prevent war between them?
The same point put more elegantly: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.’. – To Neville Chamberlain”. ? Winston Churchill.
Alan Dershowitz apparently thought SCOTUS would take the Texas Equal Protection case up. Now that they’ve declined, he believes they did so out of fear of Leftist riots and intimidation.
“Hellova nice piece of parchment you got there. It would be sad to see someth’n happen to it, bud!”
I believe a civil rights case on behalf of African American Trump voters disenfranchised by the fraud might have a chance under existing civil rights precedents and voting rights …why not give it a try with some minority plaintiffs asap?
In other news, SMOD has a schedule.
A 27.5-My underlying periodicity detected in extinction episodes of non-marine tetrapods.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2020.1849178
Michael Towns said,
“By refusing to hear Texas’ case, the Supreme Court is actually acting in the best conservative tradition.”
So, the best conservative tradition is cowardice. Got it. I know you didn’t mean it that way but that’s what it amounts to:
The best conservative tradition, from the courts to the legislature, has effectively conserved *nothing*. It hasn’t conserved American values or morals or standards. It hasn’t conserved the right of a bakery owner to not bake penis-shaped cakes and it hasn’t even been able to conserve the women’s public restroom FFS. And in this specific case, it has decided that the conservative tradition is to *not* conserve the Republic. Or their own jobs (in SCOTUS’ case). When it all falls apart, which will be not long after they get 15 or so new comrades to debate with.
Conservative tradition: navel gazing sophistry and fart sniffing rationalization so that they may find better ways of not conserving anything, especially when it matters most.
Alea Iacta Est.
@Fractal Rabbit:
At the risk of shattering my dreams of one day writing for National Review, I second that!
@Laurence Jarvik:
Worth a try as a sideshow for ironical “So how does it feel to be hoist by your own petard, Mofos?” $%%^# and giggles if could get a few Federal civil rights infringement life sentences for perps out of it. But this is flourishes and curlicues. Real work will be have to be done with pitchforks and other implements.
So now the only peaceful option is to make sure the Georgia runoffs are watched extremely closely, but given the recent past, I suspect those will be stolen also…check and mate. I have to confess the Left has been brilliant these past 20 years as they have executed a long term plan and, except for the road bump of Trump, have achieved a huge success. Now, can they hold on to it? that’s the frightening part to me as I see nothing but bloodshed coming.
And even liberal historians now grudgingly concede that Nixon really won 1960.
They don’t because he didn’t. Kennedy’s margin in the electoral college was large enough to withstand the loss of Illinois. You’d have to demonstrate that vote fraud took place in Texas and / or Missouri in sufficient quantities.
Once the ballots are counted, the election is over. It’s as simple as that. Fraud needs to be reported as they are attempting the steal. The counting needs to physically be shut down. If you cannot do that, they can do whatever they want.
As for both sides cheating in elections, it could never happen. If the media and Democrats had even a hint that Republicans wanted to do the same, they would have everything on video, and have the police immediately break up the counting room. Meanwhile, from what it looked like here, Republican “observers” meekly followed orders to evacuate when told that there was a “major water main break” and then merely said “oh shucks” when the Democratic vote counters blacked out the windows and locked the doors on them.
It appears that if a state legislature abrogates its responsibility in enforcing their own election laws and procedures, other states have no standing in challenging that state’s actions (or more precisely, inaction).
I guess the SCOTUS is saying that if a state wishes to violate its own laws, that is just fine and it is not the business of any other state; even if the violated laws can determine – fraudulently or otherwise – who the next president will be.
One would think that a state’s actions/inactions that will affect the outcome of a presidential election DOES give standing for other states to legally object.
Oh well, what the F do I know.
Fractal Rabbit:
“Conservative tradition: navel gazing sophistry and fart sniffing rationalization so that they may find better ways of not conserving anything, especially when it matters most.”
And cruises. Don’t forget cruises.
Anyway: yes. Michael Anton made precisely this point in 2016. He was right then, and you’re right now.
This is a devastating blow to the Republic. I’m very disappointed and pessimistic.
I read the last filing by Texas. Texas pointed out that unless SCOTUS acted now, all future Presidential elections will be decided by corrupt Dem machines in a few big cities.
Texas also asked that SCOTUS to remand to the state legislatures in the four defendant states. Let them decide who really won the election.
Here’s a hypo that I came up with and think is accurate. Suppose the Governor of MS decided to make slavery legal despite no approval from the MS legislature and the 13th Amendment. Suppose further neither the DOJ and federal courts in MS would do anything. Certainly Texas could sue MS to stop this.
Where was the FBI during all of this? Why not serve search warrants at that Long Island printing plant. Seize Dominion machines. Heck, wiretap the Biden campaign.
I also want to know how is it that the country that won WW2 and landed men on the moon can’t conduct an honest election in 2020.
We are in big, big trouble.
PS Creighton won.
I repeat my comment from the last thread.
“I think this is a better outcome for Trump. As I understand it, Texas asked the court to force the state legislatures to choose the electors. There is no guarantee that they wouldn’t still choose electors for China Joe and the Ho. That would pretty much end it for Trump I think. I believe he needs the electors to be in dispute on the Epiphany.”
So cheer up. This is good for Trump and good for Trump is good for us.
I tend to agree with commenter Dave vs Mythx. In states with lax election laws, red counties can mimic the policies that allowed for this debacle in the cities and stuff ballot boxes themselves. I DO believe, as Mythx points out, that the leftists in the press would likely investigate these situations leading to more stringent state laws being enacted and enforced.
With respect to the SCOTUS decision, I think this was less a federalism decision and more a fear of getting involved in this. Let’s see how they handle similar cases like those involving power plant emissions when cases are brought. They have already granted standing to one state suing another over its environmental policies. How is that any different?
Chris+J:
Good point on the “standing” of suits when it is green vs “standing” of suits when it’s their rice bowl. Integrity in the judiciary is a rare thing it seems. That will be the SCOTUS legacy regarding these three PA SCOTUS cases of 2020. Robert’s rules trifecta.
Hubert,
I forgot all about the cruises! Ahoy, matey.
I don’t know who Michael Anton is but he seems to be much further ahead of the curve than I am. In 2016, I still thought we could vote our way out of this mess. I thought Mitt Romney was a basically decent but misguided guy. I thought people were too hard on John McCain. I thought George W. Bush fundamentally good.
But then, they could all spare some vitriol and scorn, at the very least, for Trump and, by extension, the rest of us. If I didn’t believe in a uniparty Deep State then, I sure do now. ‘Conservatism’ was just a mask these seditious traitors wore to play their infernal Good Cop/Bad Cop game with us.
I was a dupe.
Like Chris+J mentioned the point is not to cheat to win but to ridicule the absurd process and make the liberals challenge the policies they championed in the court of law to establish precedent that might lead to tougher voter fraud prevention measures being implemented. Democrats has established that 0.01 rejection rate for mail in is acceptable, then stuff the ballot boxes to make them challenge the signature matching process in the court to amplify their hypocrisy or make them reject the republican ballots to boost the rejection rate and question why the rejection rate was so ridiculously low coincidentally in these four states this cycle. you think 200% turnout is reasonable then what about 2000%, what percentage is too high?
Trump invoking the Insurrection Act followed by if necessary a declaration of Martial Law and suspension of Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus would put a stop to riots right quick.
Geoffrey Britain: So Trump refrained from doing so in 2020 because it was an election year?
MLB had been turning a blind eye on doping for so long with 100 years records getting shattered every week that it was only when it was so obvious that everyone was doping that they did something. You can’t force changes until the need for change is blatantly obvious and it won’t get there until both sides engage.
Neo,
The SCOTUS rejection of the case has nothing to do with their personal opinions of Biden or Trump. And that is as it should be. They rejected it based solely on Texas not having ‘standing’ or legal grounds about how another state conducts its elections. That’s it. As you say, an interstate dispute. They didn’t consider fraud. They did not consider voting machines flipping votes, or ballot stuffing or whatever has been alleged because the only question was can Texas bring a case against another state over how elections are conducted. The answer is no. Essentially Texas was denied entry to the SCOTUS to present the case. But the meat of the case – as it were- was never considered because the legal standing was not met.
Therefore one cannot say the court is being cowardice unless the definition of cowardice is not allowing one state to bring a case against how another state conducts elections.
This was never about the Justices opinion about the allegations of the election. I’m seeing comments on Twitter about how the judges are ‘our’ judges. NO, they are not. They are Supreme Court justices for the United State of America. They don’t belong to one party. And they rule on Constitutional issues, not on their personal feelings about political issues. [Although sometimes that can play a part but there is no question the court majority is not liberal].
In that same reasoning, they did not reject this because they didn’t want to be blamed for bad things happening. If the case was deemed worthy I do not believe – as lifetime appointed judges whose entire lives are consumed with legal matters – would have passed on a substantial, controversial case like this. I’m fairly certain we could see a challenge to abortion and if it meets the standard to be accepted it will. And overturning abortion would possibly be more controversial.
How one state conduct its election has consequences for everyone else, fuck you, can Arizona change its rule that regardless of the election result that all electoral votes must be given to a republican candidate.
Now that seven of the S.C. justices have revealed themselves to be fair weather friends of the Constitution, I fully expect them to continue to punt away their Constitutional responsibilities.
Disagree. What this decision has done is bring back “States Rights” and federalism that ended 140 years ago with the Civil War. The GOP legislatures in all those cheating states are Uniparty members until proven otherwise but there is now the opportunity to begin preparing for the separation. Each red state should be looking at its electrical grid and preparing it for upgrades and connections to other red states. Texas has its own grid. Once infrastructure is prepared, the peaceful separation into red and blue can begin.
The blue states keep asserting that they support the red states with their taxes. Now is their chance to be rid of us. Think how easy the Green Nude Eel would be to enact if the red energy producing states were gone. Plus, those of us in red states, could ignore the blue state elections.
I wondered at the outset of the legal challenges whether the SC would have the courage to decide in favor of the rule of law, given they and their families personal safety would be at risk, leaving aside the carnage the brown shirts would have wreaked upon urban areas.
When the fabric of society is being torn apart, a precedent might have been appropriate, though.
Living in a state that has seen how fixing an election works, I have little confidence that there will be a fair election going forward nationally.
Here, Democrats stole the 2004 governor’s race with “found” ballots. Backed up by the right judge, they prevailed and haven’t looked back.
In the case of Washington state, they only needed a few ballots to tip the election. The magnitude of the cheating this time is breathtaking.
There is the nuclear option. That would guarantee CWII.
I have noticed that democrats are very good at exploiting and manipulate conservative principles to against conservatives. Conservatives believe in corporate freedom and the notion that private companies can do whatever they want to so liberals tech companies use that same argument to justify their censorship of the right. Same situation here, conservatives believe in state autonomy and democrats are exploiting that to rationalise their change of general election rule to ensure democrat winning while denying any attempts from the outsides to question their conducts and demand of full audit. Conservatives need to start rethinking and strengthening their positions or they will keep getting bullied by democrats using bastardised versions of things they believe in.
In fact it’s reminiscent of how Satan operates in the bible, this is exactly the same method the devil used to test Jesus. Jesus was never dogmatic with his responses and through true understanding of the truth he poked holes in the devil’s bastardised reinterpretation of Christian principals to defeat devil or resist temptation. Conservatives need to do the same
Montage:
The fact that the decision wasn’t predicated on whether a justice supported Trump or Biden has nothing to do with what it actually was predicated on. The law itself is part of it, but someone smart (and all the justices are smart) can find a legal argument to justify the result they prefer, where the law is somewhat ambiguous. This is a case of first impression and a justice could go either way on it.
They went this way for reasons other than the law, IMHO, and it was because they wanted to let other elements of government decide for them. Call it cowardice or call it prudence, it was a passive way to “decide” by deciding nothing.
And justices actually rule according to their political leanings, especially the liberal justices. This is true of all judges, but it’s not based just on politics – it’s based on judicial philosophy, liberal or conservative, elastic or strict. Politics enters into it, however, because – funny thing – the justices (very especially the liberal ones) do not necessarily apply their principles the same way no matter what the outcome. They can be inconsistent when it serves their purposes.
If you actually think this does not happen, you are naive and/or have not paid attention. Perhaps both.
See this previous post of mine on the subject.
Fractal Rabbit,
Michael Anton is the author of the “Flight 93 Election” article that appeared under the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus” in the Claremont Review of Books in September 2016:
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/
His point was that Conservatism, Inc. had conserved nothing. Caused a lot of pain and undone bowties among the NRO/Weekly Standard/T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII (hat-tip: Iowahawk) crowd. A sample of the latter from way back in 2011:
https://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/10/together-i-shall-ride-you-to-victory.html
You weren’t a dupe. You were what the police call a citizen. That is, a law-abiding person who assumed that the system still worked, that the rules were still in place, and that the people in charge on our side knew what they were doing and were guided by the best interests of the country. You weren’t alone–there were a lot of us. It took Trump to flip the rock and reveal the corruption beneath.
Michael K.:
“Each red state should be looking at its electrical grid and preparing it for upgrades and connections to other red states. Texas has its own grid. Once infrastructure is prepared, the peaceful separation into red and blue can begin.”
Precisely. Infrastructure. And, um, other things. Best case: we won’t need it. Worst case: we’ll need it.
they voted to neuter themselves, for the progs promised to pack the court, and with the seats they steal in georgia, they will be able to do that, I thought barrett and gorsuch would understand this, but it doesn’t appear to be so,
Dave,
Easy there guy…
How one state conduct its election has consequences for everyone else. But you can’t deny the fact that right now in America states have a right to conduct their own elections. We don’t have federal elections with one set of rules for all. You can argue that we should but that is not the case now. Also, Texas too changed voting laws this year along with over 30 states. It would be as nonsensical for CA to sue TX because Biden didn’t win there.
Mike K
There are not really blue and red states. There are states with people represented in both parties. Take Texas as an example. This election 5.8 million voted for Trump and 5.2 million voted for Biden. You would not be able to separate states that easily when states are somewhere between 50 / 50 or 60 / 40. And why would you? The odds of Republicans taking back the House in two years is high. This isn’t like the 1930 and 40’s when the Democrats controlled all three branches for numerous years. In 1937 in the Senate the Democrats had 76 seats and the Republicans had 16! And the House was Democrats 333 to Republicans 89! We’re nothing close to that. This country goes back and forth frequently and will continue to.
Neo,
Let’s be honest. In general if things go the way Republicans want then the judges are being judicial and professional and following the law. If they do not go the way Republicans want then the judges are partisan, blind or, worse, cowards.
And vice versa with how Democrats feel about judges.
I’ve been told that conservative justices are not partisan but are mainly just following the law. I’m glad you admit that justices do rule “according to their political leanings” and can be “inconsistent when it serves their purposes”. I would not have expected such candor so thank you for that.
Still, I say justices do attempt to look at things more from the rule of law than from their own political bias even though bias can sometimes come through because, indeed, they are human.
Yet the Supreme court denied a Pennsylvania complaint that the Pennsylvania SC and SOS Kathy Boockvar overstepped their boundary totally ( They have no say at all is my understanding) . I keep seeing comments this is still open but when is anyone’s guess.
Trump loses!
Because 4 (/6?) states accepted flawed ballots and violations of their own rules so as to mix legal with dirty illegal votes. So all the votes are now dirty.
I’m too sick and tired of being sick and tired of Dem stealing to be actively outraged anymore – now it’s time for a slow burn marathon effort. To save Free and Fair elections.
And SCOTUS says that other states don’t have standing to challenge the thefts.
The decision that 7 of them wanted – coming up with their own rationalizations.
Here’s the text of the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The US Constitution does NOT delegate health care, nor privacy, to the Feds. Thus, it should be left to the States.
1972 Roe v Wade “penumbra” logic allows the SC to rule as their hearts decide, with their (almost always fine, big) brains used to rationalize in legal language the decision they want. They could have decided Texas has standing if they wanted to.
The SCOTUS didn’t want to.
The SC would rather have voters solve the Dem steal problems, and especially the states, rather than an SC decision looking at evidence the State courts don’t find credible enough to not certify.
“Why” somebody decides they way they do is always speculative, never a “fact” – even if the person explains why. His explanation of why is a fact, but it doesn’t make his explanation true, tho it might be true, or more usually partially true.
Aspects that haven’t already been mentioned.
1) Many Reps won – it wasn’t a wipeout. I believe many GOPe think the Reps would have done even better w/o Trump as goad to get so much Dem turnout. They be wrong (stupid Party, GOPe).
2) “We won’t have Pres. Trump to kick around any more” (VP Nixon said this in his 309 – 219 EC vote loss; 15 for Harry Byrd that I hadn’t quite known about. But JFK had only 120k more popular votes). Lots of GOPe are quietly happy to be “rid” of Trump – they’re wrong about this, too. He’s not going to stop fighting, not now. Tho I’m not sure how he’ll choose to fight.
3) Tump now DOES become a “victim”, a martyr against Dem vote cheating. Most successful mass movements include martyrs, victims of some injustice. Trump has been unjustly treated by the (Dem) Deep State.
More Reps and Trump-supporters can be repeating various highlights of injustices from the last 5 years, and we should. Also a focus on how Dems refuse to enforce laws against other Dems:
Clinton’s illegal email server – nobody tried.
IRS illegal targeting conservatives – nobody tried.
Russian collusion Hoax – nobody tried, despite 2 years of gov’t lies to courts and media, and slanders. One guilty plea bargain, yet no trial, no presentation of evidence.
Numerous illegal unmaskings – nobody tried, nor investigated.
Joe Biden extorting Ukraine to fire a prosecutor – totally acceptable; Trump negotiating, impeachable.
Joe Biden getting cash from son’s businesses which are based on access to VP – no serious investigation, no trial.
Too long a list is too long, but most folks should focus on two or three, and push those that outrage them the most.
It’s a mistake in civilization to elevate victims. But at this time in our civ, Trump is a victim as are all who voted for him and had our deserved victory stolen.
Montage:
Sophistry (yours) aside if things get kinetic you blue state pukes will regret forcing the manufacturers of small arms out of your blue states into the rational states.
Sucks to be you, enjoy your lockdown.
The Democrats broke the law over and over and over. Obviously, the law means nothing any more.
Should we start shooting now or wait for it to get even worse? It will by the way. Democrats will keep doubling down until Republicans fight back.
There are still active cases moving through courts, based on the same facts which the SC did not review or issue any opinion upon. So judicial action is getting more unlikely as time passes, but not impossible.
The mess was caused by politicians in state governments and politicians in state courts. The remedy, if we get one, would probably be political as well. State legislatures have the constitutional authority to refuse to send electors if the process was tainted and the “real” winner unclear. They’d have to have the courage to do this. Democrats in Congress are already planning to refuse to accept Republicans who won in extremely tight elections. They’ve done it before. What Republican legislatures need is the political will to do what they should.
There will be an awakening for Democrats when they try to disenfranchise and destroy the livelihood of half of the country and they have no way out and all the time in the world to ponder how to destroy you. People would be more willing to put up with shit when they are making good living, the stupidest thing a dictator can do is try to cancel half of the country and rendering them having nothing to lose. Keep pushing, you are playing with fire, beware of the wrath of the quiet men.
Kate:
Lack of courage is one of the big big problems.
Neo: I agree on the lack of courage. They are afraid of riots, and afraid of being criticized by leftist media.
Just like the Democrats rigged the deep south to take away the black vote for 80 years they implemented their tactics again. The cowardice of our “elites” are on full display. As Neo says the Progressive vote as a bloc just like the Montagnards vs. the Girondins in the French Revolution. Just like the Leninist Bolshiviks vs. the Mensheviks. That is what totalitarians do. This cries for term limits for all judges. We need fresh blood. Term limits for Congress too. 18 year maximum either house.
As far as that manure of “states rights” talk well that makes the 1965 Civil Rights Act null and void. That makes the Federal Voting Rights Act inoperative. So you can take that cockeyed argument in knock it in the rubbish bin. The SC bailed.
This election was stolen in a true “Color Revolution” style. First they used the epidemic as the reason to break all the established norms of social interactions.
Then used the Floyd incident/murder to release and train their storm troopers. Then the feckless leadership outside of Florida (see a theme here from me) allowed them to intimidate. Information blackout and narrative shaping. And then the ballot fraud. All in full view. That is what gripes me. We saw it and we couldn’t stop it.
Well resist I will in all manner and form. I will help organize and keep a laser focus on fixing this. If enough people say no more there will be no more. Codavilla gives us a good template.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-rise-of-the-insurgent-right/
And remember. The police and law enforcement are not our friends. They stood by while this happened. Read this and think what has happened.
https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/23/the-police-and-us/
Neo,
I think in the rights case that is entirely so. When it comes to who has standing. The SC has repeatedly punted on numerous occasions. Then often give extremely narrow interpretations on who may bring a case. I believe with the unstated purpose of never seeing the case again.
Montage: at 12:37
You utterly demolished a strawman. It may or may not be true that a state lacks standing to challenge the manner in which another state conducts its elections, but that was not the argument Texas made. Texas asserted that the defendant states violated Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution (the “Electoral Clause”), which provides “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors.” Those simple words have a clear meaning.
Violations of the Electoral Clause by each of the states occurred when non-legislative actors (governors, secretaries, courts) altered their state’s election laws prior to the 2020 election. If the electoral rules in effect in the defendant states had been enacted by the state legislatures, Texas would lack standing.
In considering this Constitutional issue, it is important to consider the reasons for which the Electoral College was established. I highly recommend this article at History dot com. Suffice it to say, the Founders felt that the state legislatures were the most trustworthy body to determine who would be presidential electors, because they were the closest to the individual citizens. Thus, the Electoral Clause gave the state legislatures plenary power and authority to establish the methods by which the electors would be chosen.
FWIW, I think Texas weakened its argument by expounding at length on the fraud engendered by the electoral rules in the defendant states that were a consequence of their violation of the Electoral Clause. That made it easy to assume that Texas was asking the Court to overturn the election results. It also made the Constitutional argument appear to be a tort claim (“quadrillion to one” Really?). Some great lawyer once said the secret was to find the single significant fact, and focus on that.
@ Cap’n Rusty: “I think Texas weakened its argument by expounding at length on the fraud engendered by the electoral rules in the defendant states that were a consequence of their violation of the Electoral Clause.”
Maybe, but the point is probably academic. This court was never going to hear the Texas suit because the court (in my opinion) calculated (unwisely, in my opinion) that there is less to fear from the Deplorables than from the Democrats’ ANTIFA/BLM storm troopers. And in the short term, that may be correct.
Cap’n Rusty
I’ll agree that the legal case submitted to the SCOTUS was part of the reason it was rejected. It was made of of a hodge-podge of cases that were already tried in state court and didn’t have focus.
Montage:
More sophistry, since they refused standing nothing presented in their suit mattered. Your opinions on the other cases is so much flatus.
Enjoy your lockdown and economic collapse; more big firms leave CA for TX.
huxley,
“So Trump refrained from doing so in 2020 because it was an election year?”
My guess is that Trump expected to decisively win the election. Undoubtedly, he also expected democrat fraud but not as massive and blatant as occurred. Comments he’s made indicate that he is well aware of the Insurrection Act and anticipated that the predictable nationwide riots that would erupt upon his reelection would give him an unassailable case for invoking the Insurrection Act.
MollyG:
I assume that by “fear,” you mean the individual justices’ concerns that their physical safety would be threatened as a consequence of a ruling favorable to Texas (and thus, to President Trump). If they were actually thinking that we Deplorables would do them harm if they ruled against us, then they are so out-of-touch with the world beyond Washington that they should not be sitting in those chairs. But with regard to Antifa/Blm, ordinary people are well advised to fear the Left-wing storm troopers who assault people in the streets of the Nation’s capitol. But the Justices are protected by the Supreme Court Police and the U.S. Marshalls service, ensconced in a cocoon of safety.
Is what the Justices fear is the harm to their reputations among the Elite of Washington, DC that would result from a ruling favorable to President Trump?
Montage:
Aha! I’ve got you headed in the right direction. Can you comment on my distinction between standing to sue for the manner in which the defendant states conducted their elections, versus standing to sue for their violation of the Electoral Clause in the Constitution?
Here’s where I think we currently stand…
Trump may yet prevail, though that will only occur if subsequent rullings by the S.C. find in favor of Trump. His retaining the Presidency would open up another set of possibilities.
Assuming that not to be the case, there are IMO four future possibilities; overall acceptance of a gradual imposition of 1984… Civil War II… Secession… Trump declares Martial Law and pulls a ‘Caesar’.
The first; 1984 requires no elaboration as there are numerous historical examples of what that will involve.
Civil War II; I think by far the most likely as the Left will force it upon us. As the Left’s ideological imperatives ensure it.
There are several ‘trigger wires’ to an eruption of hostilities. Gun confiscation, Trump’s political imprisonment and/or assassination, hate speech laws. Reeducation camps. Mass arrests.
Secession; I percieve three problems with it.
The pragmatic difficulties in its implementation.
The near certainty that the Left won’t accept it. Psychologically and ideologically, allowing liberty and capitalism to exist is an anathema to the Left.
Finally, China’s global ambitions. I see no possibility of a divided America possessing the military and economic prowess to withstand the ChiCom’s geopolitical ambitions.
Trump pulling a ‘Caesar’; I don’t see Trump possessing enough of a consensus within the military to back him in such a move and enable it to manifest.
@ Cap’n Rusty: No, I did not mean the individual justices’ fear for their own (and their families’) safety, or for their reputations among the Swamp dwellers. I meant the real risk and prospect of cities in flames across blue states where feckless governors and mayors have already shown their willingness to allow such mayhem.
MollyG:
So the Supreme Court declined to grant Texas’ motion to present its case, which could have resulted in overcoming rampant fraud, enforcing the Rule of Law as set forth in the Constitution, thereby placing Donald Trump in the White House . . . because the Supreme Court didn’t want criminals burning and looting blue cities.
I See.
We All See.
I’ll add to Fractal Rabbit’s list. Conservatives added, very slowly, to the power of social “progressives” – minors can get birth control without parents consent at, what, age 12? 14? This same mentality has now moved to those who believe they are transgender where the government is siding with these kids. DCFS in certain states (e.g. Illinois) now make it mandatory for foster parents to affirm questioning kids. The American Association of Pediatricians are behind affirmation of transgender kids. Having a gay kid is just vanilla. Same thing with having a bi-racial kid. The thing that’ll get you points in your social circle is having a transgender kid. Let’s also not forget about Obergefell v Hodges.
But hey, at least so-called conservatives haven’t budged on the 2A and still oppose universal healthcare and college! Gold star! In reality today’s so-called conservatives are just economically conservative. Might as well just say they’re libertarians and that true conservatism is a minority sect. I am sure they can somehow justify universal healthcare and free college in that thing called the Constitution.
And it must be something psychological in the modern liberal mind because there tends to be at least one resident liberal/troll (in this it’s montage) on a conservative site, whether it’s here or somewhere else. I’ve noticed that when I started to visit conservative sites when I turned the corner. I mean sooner or later that resident liberal is going to show up if the site gets enough traffic by regulars.
And no matter how patient and articulate you express your thoughts the liberal will demonstrate how utterly thickheaded they are. Your words will go in one ear and then exit out the other. What happens between those two ears is just a jumble mess of static and words mixed together.
SC – sad, but not unexpected.
Like Barr & Durham – no excitement without indictments.
Cover up for the Deep State. Which liberals like.
Great expression on liberal thinking here; actually their FEELING (on equality):
https://thedandy.club/home/highly-qualified-what-does-liberalism-mean?
So why does this view that erases equality and pushes oppression as the root of everything appeal so much to affluent liberals? To me, it seems like the answer is that despite the pieties they espouse, liberal elites don’t really believe in equality, either; no affluent person does. They know their prosperity comes at someone else’s expense, and a worldview that was actually invested in equality would insist they share more of their good fortune.
Still, they want to believe they are good people. They’re liberals! So just imagine the relief when they are told that the inequality that resulted in their having so much while so many Americans have so little is not the result of their failure to pay more taxes or to send their kids to public schools, but that it stems from something as immutable as the color of their skin. It totally relieves them of the responsibility of doing anything about it. All they can do is feel guilty. They get to keep all their money while feeling like heroes! How perfect.
They keep their cash AND “moral superiority”. Ain’t that great?
“at least one resident liberal/troll (in this it’s montage) on a conservative site,”
I believe many if not most are paid or at least dispatched. HRC had a frank internet trolling operation, “Correct the Record”. And it probably doesn’t cost a lot of money for e. g. Soros to keep a stable of young dummies without jobs on the payroll to do this. Sometimes the same ones keep reappearing as sock puppets.
“And no matter how patient and articulate you express your thoughts the liberal will demonstrate how utterly thickheaded they are. Your words will go in one ear and then exit out the other. What happens between those two ears is just a jumble mess of static and words mixed together.” – GRA on trolls
I just watched this video today and thought: there must be some thread at Neo’s where it will fit in!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=EVF0ojfhSrE
“How To Argue With Someone Who Won’t Listen”
It doesn’t really address the True Troll, aka paid shill, but it might present a way to connect with the Thoughtful Troll, who is possibly concerned with enlightening the other readers.
And it presents some good points for assessing one’s own trolling tendencies.
Tom Grey,
“To me, it seems like the answer is that despite the pieties they espouse, liberal elites don’t really believe in equality, either; no affluent person does. They know their prosperity comes at someone else’s expense”
That maybe what the majority of liberal elites believe but to suggest that prosperity MUST always come at someone else’s expense is nonsense.
That maybe what the majority of liberal elites believe but to suggest that prosperity MUST always come at someone else’s expense is nonsense.
Geoffrey Britain:
Agreed. However, it occurs to me that status, on the other hand, is a zero-sum game and certainly a large part of what the elites are playing for.
If everyone is special, then no one is.
}}} Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, but given that this was a clear and self-evident fact with regards to the elections in those four states, it is self-evident that the SCotUS had reason to consider this.
The flimsy excuse that the voters of Texas had “no standing” is preposterous on the very surface. Every single person in this COUNTRY has a blatant vested interest in who becomes PotUS. And that includes the voters of Texas.
If there was a clearly violated rule regarding the elections in those four states, then that PRIMA FACIE affects not just the voters in those states but also the voters in every other state.
I am… greatly disappointed in the SCotUS, here.
The people of the USA have now been abandoned by every body and every organization whose job it is to protect them against external predation (external to each individual, that is) in the nature of election fraud.
The fact that not less than 47% of the country perceives this election as “likely stolen through fraud” is more than amply adequate to cause the SCotUS to take very very seriously all challenges, and not to do some cheap-ass fancy two-step around the notion of “standing” to dodge their INNATE REQUIREMENT to address that in the end, particularly if other remedies are failing.
And every mother fucking cocksucking son of a bitch piece of shit whose VERY PURPOSE for existing in a government position is trying to claim, “Iss not my yob”.
Yes, it IS your MOTHER FUCKING JOB you ambulatory humaniform container of human excreta.
And what you ARE doing is guaranteeing that the result will destroy this country. There is not a single solitary analyst who, 30y and more from now will NOT be going “WTF were they thinking would happen?”
I am, indeed, as mad as hell, and no, my response will not be limited to simply *yelling* “And I’m not going to take it any more.”
This is not going to be pretty.
This is not about Trump winning or losing. It’s about allowing this country to have a third-world banana-republic grade of election, and ignoring that.
Bush-v-Gore was a clear Constitutional crisis. The noise from the election swamped the signal. So what do you do? In a banana republic, the solution is to take up arms. But that would not sit well with the American republic, with one side grabbing weapons and shooting at the other. But no, instead, we / they followed legal procedures and had Gore and Bush swapping legal ripostes, until finally Gore went, “…I got nothing.”
Well, we have another Constitutional crisis. The election machinery has been hijacked by a swath of charlatans, and it was done in a particularly OBVIOUS way, such that not significantly less than ONE HALF of the population considers it “somewhat likely” that it was stolen. And more than one third believe it “very likely” it was stolen.
The Constitution does not say what to do? No shit, Sherlock. The Constitution makes some basic decency presumptions which are clearly not applying.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ALLOWED THE SCotUS EXACTLY THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT IT HAS. To DECIDE what was intended by the Founders for “this particular oddball case , which they had not considered or made provision for”.
And they’ve sat down, for fear of ticking off the Left. Well, the Left, having CREATED this situation, deserved to be ticked off. The rest of us, no, not so much. We’ve seen what the left can do. Now, it appears we’re going to see what the right can do… you know, the side with all the weapons, the military experience, the guerilla tactics background.
It looks as though it will be civil war, because I don’t think this will stand. If the States don’t pick this up and run with it, by seceding, then it’s going to happen the minute Biden tries to enforce some idiotic diktat which they consider their “majority” to have given them a free hand to enforce, such as a mask mandate, or gun confiscation.
Be concerned. Be very very concerned. >:-(
}}} Everyone knows that if the Supremes ruled such that dominoes fell and Trump won, the country would be burning from coast to coast for months. A2020 would just have been a warm-up.
THAT is due to a small, very obnoxious, totally unrighteous minority’s willingness to have a temper tantrum.
And it would be their own cities they’d be destroying, not everything else.
What do you imagine is going to be the response of literally 2/5ths of the American adult population getting sick and fucking tired of being cheated and dumped on?
It’s going to be one hell of a lot more than a slow burn.
OBH, please consider doing this (unless you have a medical reason not to):
Take a shower, as you normally do, and at the end, turn the water all the way to cold and set a timer for five minutes. Do it every day for a week.
Please suspend your disbelief, and see what you think after a week.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon on why she believes (and thought all along) that the Texas argument was not as strong as it could have been—and why SCOTUS was probably correct to reject it as formulated.
And she’s one of the good guys.
And she’s no slouch.
And its’ NOT over.
https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1337546871540224001
AppleBetty:
Consider that walking away from your keyboard or running over your smart phone. You will feel better in a week, or not, but this dire situation will still be here with us.
Major Edit is back from AWOL (or R&R?) Now busted down to Private Edit.
om:
Good idea, and tougher than the cold. Will do!
P.S. Can’t walk away from work on the keyboard, but walk away from politics is a can do. Thanks!
OBloodyHell:
I agree with your assessment of the SCOTUS BTW, and to AppleBetty there is nothing to see:
https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/michigan-dominion-report/
Dominion voting system software in MI is claimed to have intrinsic (built in) features designed to produce high rates of bad votes that would require “ajudication.” Ajudication not done with oversight or election observers.
Dominion voting system software used in GA too, anything to look at there Mr. GA Secretary of State? Wouldn’t want those senate races to require ajudication of bad votes?
One focus of protests should be “NO Fraud – No Dominion machines”.
I’m glad it’s not, quite, over – but it’s down to 0.1% likely that Trump wins.
99% that there WAS widespread fraud – tho only a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Another remedy requested should be new votes in the 7 big Fraud cities.