The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear two cases involving 2020 election challenges.
A one-sentence opinion put an end to two so-called "kraken" cases filed by pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, taking issue with the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin.
This comes on the heels of the Supreme Court's decisions not to intervene in the New York's District Attorney's quest to obtain former President Trump's tax records, and the Court declining to hear several cases challenging Pennsylvania's "ballot-integrity" measures.
The Sidney Powell petitions urged the Court to hear her cases, saying they involved questions that were matters of public importance:
A submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation. While such relief is rare, this Court will grant it ‘where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken.Petitions for Writ of Mandamus, Cases 20-871, 20-859, and 20-858
The issues the petitions posed to the Supreme Court were:
- Who has legal "standing" to challenge the outcome of a presidential election? (The Supreme Court declined to hear several challenges prior to the certification of the 2020 electoral college results, stating that the petitioners did not have legal "standing", or did not suffer direct injury or harm from the alleged election fraud.)
- Whether federal courts can and should hear cases of alleged election fraud and illegality based on the U.S. Constitution.
- When are claims to de-certify results of a presidential election permitted?
- Whether a federal court can invalidate an unconstitutional election and bar appointed electors from voting in the electoral college.
I wish SCOTUS would have heard these cases NOT to necessarily 'reverse' an election, but to decide their role in this. Their actions seem to say in general. 'we have no role', this is not 2000.
But THAT'S THE JOB. Let them take the case (how can we all NOT have standing in a national election?) and rule that SCOTUS has no role, therefore seeing both majority and dissenting opinions and WHY.
PS your list of who to trust at the end of 'Slanted' gratifyingly listed some of the people I have come to trust (a little)
All the Supreme Court could have done would be to order a recount under the established laws, not the ones passed right before the election in which there was no time to settle things in court.
It would have provided a fair count, and a rightful winner.
I imagine it would have turned out to reverse the Fraud.
David Field says
So essentially they are saying they will not define these issues until there is another election fraught with chaos, misinformation, false claims, suppression of the truth, and there is some kind of verification and validation that the integrity of the election is important to the voters. Well, that's just great.
Now that precedent has been set, we will surely see more attempts at manipulation, fraud and ways to get around state constitutions in every election until it is finally addressed. Relying on the state courts to do the right thing is not a slam-dunk, as witnessed in Pennsylvania, where the court allowed changing the election protocol without the required legislative approval.
Forget future elections, the Democrats will not risk a free and fair election again. The House had passed a new Voting Law to ensure that 'Free & Fair' does not happen again.
If one Democrat Senator votes against this bill, it will fail. If the Democrats follow party line, it will tie at 50-50 and Harris will break the tie, and it will then head to Biden's desk for his signature.
I believe the United States will become a failed nation state since the Courts and Congress abrogated their Constitutional Duty.
Well, there you have it. Proof that what for over two centuries was the only apolitical branch of the Federal Government is in fact partisan. So sad to see them complicit in what could well be one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people by granting the writ of mandamus. So when is Kamala Harris being sworn in as the last president of the UNITED States?
The answer to your closing question just entered my mind as I finished my comments.
Kamel will be sworn in as the last president so she can formally or officially end the United States.
Suze, If possible, I would like to discuss this with you, mainly compare information.
Abraham Lincoln says
Sorry, Suze, that is not right at all. The court refused to issue a writ of mandamus n these cases because Sydney Powell brought them incorrectly. The Court almost never hears cases that have not already been first brought in the trial court. The trial court is where all the facts are hashed out. Both sides have the chance to challenge the "facts" that the other side tries to allege. The Supreme Court would have been out of its mind to take these cases, because there is no set of facts that have been determined. It would be virtually impossible to make a valid ruling. THAT is why the court denied Powell's petition here.
Furthermore, as she admits, using a writ of mandamus is probably prohibited by the case law here. It simply is not the proper form to bring the case. You can tell by her pleading that even she knew that it was super unlikely that the court would hear it, because the law on writs of mandamus does not support her petition. Essentially, she was saying "Ignore the law, Supreme Court. I think this is really important, so ignore the law and just pretend that a writ of mandamus would be appropriate here.
Sorry. I know the election was stolen, but all these cases so far did not do the minimum thing to be heard by the Supreme Court - go through the regular Trial Court process. Only then will the Supreme Court hear these cases. So expect someone to figure this out and get a case into the Trial courts, which they should have done. in the first place. All Powell did is waste time and get headlines.
Most people know the election was stolen, the real question is whether the theft suits your agenda or not. If it suits your agenda, then one repeats the Democrat party line as You did.
I suggest you read Article III, Section 2, Clause (2) In all cases affecting ..., and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. ...
Original jurisdiction means a matter in question goes Directly to the Supreme Court. It requires 4 of the 9 Justices to agree to review the matter in question. TWO very experienced Justices agreed the case had merit.
The 3 Democrat Justices followed the Democrat Party line, 3 so-called Republican Justices proved to be Swamp Creatures recently activated for this case and they joined the 4th Swamp Creature Chief Roberts. This procedure exists when the matter is of National Importance and 'time is of the essence".
The most this would have done would be to give the Electoral College and Congress more information in which they could base their decision when they met to perform their Constitutional responsibilities.
= Contrary to what the media wanted us to believe, Congress could have brought the whole process to a halt. The media chose not to provide that election, the media babbled about 1800 & 1828, But Did Not Mention The Election Of 1876.
My above post is for Abraham Lincoln.
Diana Holler says
The corruption in the government is no different than the communist countries we vilify. I would have never believed there was so much corruption in the Supreme Court. Someone had some dirt on the Chief Justice. It’s sickens me! It should sicken every citizen of America. I now refer to it as the District of Corruption!!!!!
That is the best designation I have seen in a long time or maybe even ever in my 70 years. May I use it, I will attribute it to great conservative philosopher, I will not use your name, let alone claim it for myself. I would nominate it for a Pulitzer if I could. I may try. I do things like that.
There is no difference in the Corruption of Communist Countries, because the goal this corruption was to create a Communist State.
If you are speaking to my comment, go for it.
I was speaking to your comment. It is Great.
I once applied for a Cardinal's job in the Catholic Church even though I had not been a priest, while Catholic, I am non-practicing.
It had to do with their push to get more rights and benefits for Illegal Aliens.
The US government encourages and enables Illegal Immigration, it pays the Catholic Church well over $100 million dollars a year to resettle refugees. The dollar amount comes from within the Catholic Church and is about 15 years old. I imagine it has substantially increased. This being one of the reasons I am non-practicing.
Lutheran Social Services has been given or taken it upon themselves to re-settle Moslems in the US. That began in the late 1970s. They began flooding my state with them, but then that is another story.
My ten year old grandson asked me if we were the only people that knew the about the cheating in the election. He obsessed. Maybe there is some hope for this country.
You are doing a good job being a grandmother.
Kevin and Diana,
Getting to the crux of how we got to here :
Marxian Activist Judges Trash Ancient Greeks’ Legacy
- - -
Stable and Concrete Rule by LAW
‘Living and Breathing’ Rule by FEELINGS
Everyone knows, Left and Right, what “activist judges” means, as Marxian leftists make no apologies about legislating social policy from the bench, arguing that our Constitution “lives and breathes” to accommodate “necessary adjustments” to society, which living and breathing accommodation may expand or alter a law’s meaning, in order to “accommodate America’s changing social attitudes and circumstances”; an argument driven by FEELINGS, not by any SOUND LOGIC nor ORIGINAL INTENT.
-from my collection of 3000-plus thoughts on the root causes of America’s steep moral/cultural decline, “Paleoconservative Thoughts To Ponder”:
1396) Marxian liberals conceived the ideas "penumbras" and "emanations" to make, contradictorily so, a "living document" out of our rule-of-law Constitution, allowing liberal lawyers and judges to find constitutional "rights" where none exist, such as a right to privacy and a right to an abortion, both of which actually cast privileges upon select groups against the public good—privileges that have been (are) terminal cancers on American civilization; a privilege of privacy used against majority interest by criminals, presidents, congressmen and government agencies; and a privilege of abortion used by women against the interest of wombed HUMAN babies, of their biological fathers, and of the public good found in this noble idea: “HUMANE SOCIETY.”
Rightists argue against rule by feelings because such judicial activism destroys the rule of law—because - and using irrefutably sound logic here - if a “law” lives and breathes according to changing social attitudes and circumstances, then it cannot be a law, but a WHIM, according to every traditional and accepted meaning of the word.
Laws are stable and concrete rules that DO NOT CHANGE meanings with external circumstances, nor by the internal biases of judges—excepting, of course, these libertine/liberal social-engineering judges who thumb their elite NORTHEAST-LIBERAL nose at the Constitution, at Congress, and at America’s now-numbed citizenry, who suffer Marxian activist judges’ tyrannical power to remake laws, or to make new ones, or refuse to hear abridgement-of-past-law cases, which change society from the bench—in this purported meritocratic/democratic, “will of the people” republic!
Liberalism’s activist judges trash the Greek legacy of the rule of law, possibly Greeks’ most precious legacy bequeathed to us, after freedom of speech—that ancient crucible of white Western civilization to which we Westerners owe every freedom from the brutal hands of TYRANTS, all of whom seek - more than anything else! - POWER and CONTROL, to enslave the classes beneath them to their every WHIM!—AUTOCRATIC (dictatorial) kings, queens, oligarchs, gods, and these present-day would-be-gods on the Supreme Court :
Marxian ACTIVIST Judges.
One powerful example of rule-by-whim judges badly informing and changing our meritocratic/democratic republic for the WORSE, is that shallow-brained Justice Thurgood Marshal (( “shallow-brained,”—because he was emotion-driven not law-driven; and because his hide-the-ignorance law clerks had produced for him his “scholarly” opinions )), who had expressed his FEELINGS-BASED “reasons” in court during hearings on Brown vs. Board of Education, and which Extra-Constitutional “reasons” for enacting FORCED INTEGRATION of white and black children included voicing his EMOTIONAL, not LAWFUL !!! concern for the “hurt feelings of negro children,” who are being taught apart from white children.
Brown vs. Board of Education was decided on FEELINGS, not on the rule of law, as set out in the U.S. Constitution, and which rule of law requires a congressional amendment to its ORIGINAL INTENT to effect; for example, that awful tyranny of FORCED Busing!—but not according to those tyrannical Marxian gods on the bench.
Read the PREAMBLE’s “domestic tranquility” clause, the Preamble being the PURPOSE - the MISSION Statement! - for which the CONSTITUTION was written for the MAJORITY—NOT for minority interests!, as those Marxian gods on the bench had Ruthlessly, BADLY, violated the Domestic Tranquility of the Majority white population for an incompatible, MINORITY one; for an HERITABLY INCOMPATIBLE (( in temperament, in physicality, and in I.Q. potential )) MINORITY population (( what does “democracy” mean: M A J O R I T Y RULE ! )).
Note how Libertine/Liberal/“Progressive”/Leftist lawyers, such as in the Marxian ACLU, argue for separation/divorce for any incompatible spouses, yet deny DANGEROUS INCOMPATIBILITY exists between ethnic groups - study Aristotle on the matter! - requiring/demanding SEPARATION in order TO KEEP the PEACE.
So, today, as in the past 70 years, blacks are being FORCE-Integrated by the LEFT (( by psychologically libertine, liberal, EMOTION-Driven folks )) while white RIGHTISTS (( the psychologically moral, conservative, LOGIC-Driven folks )) flee that MARXIAN Social-Engineering—escape because of the STARK (inherited) DIFFERENCES in their racially distinct Social / Cultural / Traditional / Familial manifestations.
I am going to try to limit myself to one issue.
Brown v Topeka was decided based on the Constitution, keep the 13th 14th & 15th Amendments in mind. I am not going to highlight the various relevant portions of the Constitution.
The 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments corrected some issues that had developed that should not have arisen. Plessy v. Ferguson undid the intent of of the Constitution and its Amendments. Brown attempted to meet the intent of the Constitution.
Busing Was Activism and based on feelings forced by tyranny from the bench.
I do not like the term Right and Left because they obscure the truth. Yes, I will admit it is an easy way to describe things, too easy.
= Communism was alive and well by the French Revolution even though the word Communism had not been invented. Mussolini was a big man in the Cominterns or Internationals, as his father had been before him. One day Mussolini realized he was proud to be an Italian and set about creating Fascism or the Third Way.
== Right now you have the main difference between Communism and Fascism/Nazism. Nazism adds a racial component to Fascism. Communism is an International movement and seeks a one world government like today's Democrats. Fascism/Nazism is a National movement.
--- Both Communism & Fascism/Nazism base their philosophies on the teachings of Karl Marx.
If you doubt me, explain to me why it was better to be arrested by Stalin's KGB and if you survived the interrogation you were sent to the Gulags, than being arrested by Hitler's Gestapo and if you survived the interrogation, you were sent to the work camps or death camps.
You have some valid points in there as well. I will check things out.
The whistleblower is testifying in a couple videos -- with hazed-up images though you can see general shapes and movement -- and truly, the deep state is a den of vipers, headed by Rod Rosenstein collaborating with a network of demonic assets in ATF, SS, etc all around with PENCE, ROBERTS and ROMNEY, etc .... Pence was a homosexual with an appetite for young ones,.. and the list goes on..... see for yourselves, and make your own assessment on what to do.....
I doubt Rosenstein ran anything, though he was an active part and middle management.
Right now I question your assessment of Pence, though I have wondered about his connection to the Swamp/Deep State.
i read the whole transcript and it's mind boggling. Rosenstein is actively implicated and according to this whistleblower's information Pence AND BIDEN even more so - yes, they like them young & younger. very brave to have come forward.
I know Rosenstein was actively involved in Deep State Coup. But 0bama set the coup in motion and ran it. There is a list of minions to do the dirty work.
Transcripts for what? Are we talking the Coup against Trump or Epstein Island?
Are you saying Pence was involved in the Epstein Island pedophile ring.? If so, I need to get up to speed on this. Thank you
This will sicken you at how corrupt Justice Roberts, et al, are.
The Supreme Court's actions or in-actions Ruled that "he who cheats the best & the most wins".
The Deep State or Swamp (Read: Corruption) is deeper and wider than anyone could have imagined. = Roberts was Sleeper Agent for the Swamp. He was activated when it became necessary to keep 0bamacare legal Sleeper Agent Sessions was activated to prevent President Trump and Justice Department from completing the investigation into the Silent Coup.
= Barr was his back-up, just in-case.
= Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett were 3 more activated to keep the provide the Ruling that Cheating is Constitutional when you Prevail.
The Greatest Fraud perpetrated in history was allowing 0bama, Illegal Alien-in-Chief become President of the United States. The Left knew when that happened that no one would ever question or object let alone stop their Corruption or Treason or Subversion.
They were correct, there was not enough opposition to stop it.
I do believe 0bama was appointed to turn out the lights on America and consign America to the pile of failed nation states, thus successfully completing the plan implemented in the 1960s.
Edmund Edmondson says
You believe stupid things. Likely because you are stupid.
Seek Help, you can seek joint counseling with your groupie below.
I’m in absolute agreement!
Susan Myers says
We are experiencing tyranny by the Democrat Party against the United States of America and its sacred document--The US Constitution--while using Obama's Communist/Marxist manifesto tactics. Oaths taken by Government officials to uphold the Constitution are meaningless lies coming from people who lack virtue. I agree with Kevin's post....
Uncle Sam says
A war is coming. Every level of our government has been infiltrated by the Deep State... AKA, useful idiots to Communist China. China has muscle. Deep State has money. In the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors... the Deep State can get stoned to death by Islam or cut up by communists. God help us.
The Deep State would be lucky to have to deal with the Moslems or Communists. There are millions of Patriots standing between the Deep State and the other two groups mentioned. Who will do more damage, irate Patriots and the two mutant groups you mentioned.
The questions posed have already been answered in the process that took place on 1/6/21. The Certification of votes. As it began, AZ had been objected to by the required House & Senate. The next step is to debate for an hour on the merits of the objection. This process is what was thwarted by the actions of agents aiming to do so. IT WORKED. The debate did not take place.
After the chaos, several House reps declined to state their objections.
The Leftists, media, Congress, etc babbled about the certification for the elections of 1800 & 1828. They did not mention 1876 because they almost put the whole election results to a halt. 4 States sent in both Democrat and Republican Electors.
The Democrats agreed to withdraw their electors, if the Republican President would withdraw the Federal troops from the South ending Reconstruction.
GEORGE EADY says
MY QUESTION IS DOES THE TOP COURT IN THE LAND , KNOW THAT AT LEAST 1/2 OF AMERICA HAS NO TRUST IN THEM. AND THAT NUMBER IS GROWING DAY BY DAY. IF THERE IS NO TRUST IN THERE ACTIONS . THEN WHAT DO WE NEED THEM FOR (WE DONT NEED A COURT THAT WE CANT TRUST )
Probably, but they do not care because it is Mission Accomplished.
If I am correct, it may not make any difference because America may be done for.
Roberts. Worst Supreme Court justice, let alone Chief Justice. An empty robe...
if 19 state Attorneys General do not have standing to have their case heard, who does? answer: no one. Well, the Dred Scott decision by another pathetic Supreme Court, a blatantly racist and slavery-biased decision, actually prompted the Civil War because the good people realized at that moment there was no choice. I am not suggesting in any way that is the solution now, just that was the actual history of the SCOTUS. Blessings to the few righteous SC justices who voted to hear the cases.
Maybe they should mention they are scared because they denied 80 million voters due process.
Ferdinand J. Reinke says
Secession anyone? The USSR dissolved; why not the USA?
Geriatric Doorgunner says
Secession is just what the globalist banksters would love to see, Pick off the seceeded areas one at a time. Kalifornia leftists are already inviting the Chinese govt in to run seaports, and now there is a Chicom quisling in the White House. No doubt Bozo Jojo would welcome his owners in with open arms to "help reunite the country." "A house divided cannot long stand." ( I read that someplace..) It will fall to those of us who honour our oath to the Constitution to clean up the mess that the Congressional Crime Syndicate has created while the mass of the populous just indulged in their bread and circus Sundays (football and Budweiser) while the MSM propaganda mill ossified their public school washed brains even more.
Much like the replies I read here, I guess the SCOTUS felt they had to be a little "krack-in" the head to hear these cases. But as Justice Thomas said after a recent case, SCOTUS was passing on an opportunity for the courts to review these matters even though the fraud claims were insufficient to change any of the results.
It’s not been adjudicated to find out if there was enough corruption to change results. More and more coming out daily. No matter what how much corruption is O.K. Our Country is in Dire Straits, there’s NO Justice left
And her case was of “biblical proportions”! It may have been the talking donkey that the court thought lacked veracity.