Supreme Court Agrees to ‘Consider’ Hearing Three Election Challenge Cases

No one should be too excited about this bit of DC Swamp Kabuki Theater.

Your case is basically moot now? Ok, let’s get it on the docket for consideration! – Now that the DC Swamp’s sock puppet, China Joe Biden, has been installed safely in the Oval Office and surrounded by a National Guard security perimeter, the Washington Examiner reports that the Supreme Court has finally agreed to consider hearing some election challenge cases that would have been ripe two months ago.

Now? Not so much.

Regardless, the Court has agreed to “consider” whether or not to hear the Pennsylvania election case, Sidney Powell’s Michigan election case, and Lin Wood’s Georgia election case.

From the story at the Washington Examiner:

The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.

The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.

In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden’s inauguration, their success would be unlikely.

But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness. Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.

“Our legal issue,” he said, referring to the way in which Pennsylvania conducted the 2020 election, “remains important and in need of the court’s review.”

Similarly, Kelly’s lawyer Greg Teufel, told the Washington Examiner after the court refused to hear his case before the inauguration that the 10-year congressman and major Trump ally had no intention of dropping the suit.


But don’t get your hopes up: It is highly likely the Court will find some technicality or procedural grounds for refusing to actually agree to hear any of these cases, since it became clear during November and December that it can dig up a rationale for refusing to hear any case it doesn’t want to hear, regardless of the merits involved. There is no question, for example, that the Pennsylvania case clearly involved a blatant violation of the constitution by the Pennsylvania legislature and courts, and deserved to be fast tracked, but the Court dummied up a reason not to hear it in a timely manner nonetheless.

Even if the Court should deign to hear one of the cases just to try to make it look as if it is diligently trying to do its job – which it plainly has not been doing – that case or cases will not be heard until next October.

Bottom line, this is all just another bit of DC Swamp Kabuki Theater, a farce acted out for the benefit of the corrupt news media, which will in turn heap praise on “system” for “working.”

But the system is rigged, and we all know it. As George Carlin used to famously tell us, it’s a big club and we aren’t in it.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever before. is the only real conservative alternative to Drudge. It’s the tool I use to help keep up with all the day’s events, and it should be your tool, too.

3.7 3 votes
Article Rating
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joseph Quinones

Gregg, so how do you account for the Hundreds of Thousands, if not Millions of illegal immigrants being allowed to enter the USA for the sole purpose to swell the ranks of the democratic party (lower case intentional) by the time your Amendment is accepted overwhelming by them (being the democrats)? There is no fix to the situation this scam of an election has forced our Great Nation into. We have no way back to a truly Free and Just Nation of By The People For the People of the United States of America. The immigrants have one thing and one thing in mind only, themselves and how this country is going to care for them. Bring them here is not the solution, send them help their where the money will go farther, but do not give it to their government. What happened to the Peace Corp, send teachers and builders, it would do more for them, than to free them into the street of the ghettos with little hope of finding their way for at least the next two generations of their families. Not to mention the pain and sorrows of American families who will lose loved ones at the hands of crimes committed by desperate immigrants with failed dreams of an America who did this to them for the Power to rule and keep them as more have nots. They have no idea of the cost we as Americans will have to endure, and no I’m not a white supremacist. My family immigrated legally from Spain, they stood on line and paid the price to be free. My Grandparents work hard as small business owners. My father served in Korea, I in Vet Nam, Iraq, Iran and Kuwait. I have no problems with legal and fair immigration that will help rather than hurt our Country. Democrats lied when they took the vows of office to defend the Laws and Constitution of the United States We’re unraveling at the seam and headed to socialism and fascism (again lower case intentional) the rulers of the haves over the have nots. We had the most Perfect of Countries, now in a very short time we will end up as among the worst. Republicans failed us with their infighting and the hate for one Man who dared to actually accomplish things that no others could. That swamp is deep and expansive, but drain it to some extent he did. Four years of hard work and in less than one month, thousands of jobs lost, more lives lost that will surpass the number of deaths from this virous because of the failed polices of the ever so great and know it all democrats (need I say it again, intentionally).

Gayla Jensen

Thank you for the explanation and well written article. I was all geared up for a SCOTUS hearing…. Glad to hear truth.

Dusty Dog

The SC will do as it always does: (1) claim no standing, (2) make such a narrow ruling that it falls way short of actually addressing the issue, (3) kick it back to a lower court. or throw it out on a technicality. In other words, the SC doesn’t have the stones to do their job.

Remo Williams

It’s about time – you’ve already let the American people down by not doing this earlier. The eye’s of the world are on you… don’t screw it up.


all the so called, “supreme court” will do is rubber stamp the election challenges.

Last edited 27 days ago by Greg
Sharon Campbell

You are correct, David. Even the not-so-supreme court is performing dog & pony shows for the serfs. Disgusting!


Bless you, Dave for channeling Carlin. 🤘


If the court hears the case and IF the court rules in our (Trump and America’s) favor, it will likely send it back to the states for THEM to fix. Which would of course get the corrupt Pennsylvania SC, the corrupt Georgia Gov. and SOS, and Michigan’s Witless Whitmer involved; all of whom are more than willing and capable of squashing their respective GOP legislatures.

No, if something worthwhile was going to happen in these states, AND in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin and possibly Virginia, Minnesota and others, it would have happened in December.

That is what “conservative” courts do and what conservative opinions are. They render the narrowest possible decision (Colorado baker vs gay wedding couple’s cake for example) which resolves nothing and invites further litigation on THE SAME ISSUE! Whereas (a little legal lingo there), a liberal court or decision – by even a lowly district court judge – almost always affects the entire country. 

See how that works folks? The entire judicial system needs as much reforming as the DOJ and FIB and nearly every other government agency and department

At best, the result of all this litigation will be the SC will pretend to hear and take the case seriously as a sop to us, they will act like the ‘concerned’ dog (donkey) owner when the dog piddles on the rug and swat it lightly with a newspaper, render a decision which will appear “conservative”, that certain “irregularities” occurred in certain counties and recommend the states take appropriate measures to ensure accurate vote tabulation in the future.

Unless and until people are jailed for this and other criminal behavior no meaningful reform is possible.

Noting will be done to end the vote fraud, in fact, it will embolden the perpetrators of the fraud to work harder to flip more Red/Purple States like Iowa, North Carolina and even Texas.

Just like the swamp is emboldened by the deliberate failure to prosecute, convict and jail even one of the participants in 0bamagate, Bidengate, Hillarygate and Bushgate, the same will happen in this instance.

Barr and Sessions should have been fired within months after showing they were empty suit do nothings and CHARGED with malfeasance!

Woulda, shoulda, coulda…  

If the GOP (at all levels of government) had done THEIR job for THEIR constituents AND America, we would, should, could have had a great country.  The corrupt GOP, at every level, deliberately forfeited a once in a generation, if not in a lifetime, chance to MAGA/KAG. And they must be punished bigly for it in all future elections, and with the help of the established voting precedents, that is a very real likelihood.

We can only hope. 

Irwin Tyler

The states have lost too much of their Constitutional powers to the federal government. In large part the instrument of this transfer of power has been the Supreme Court. There needs to be a better way to ensure that Constitutional checks-and-balances actually works.

Even before the death of Justice Scalia and its aftermath, confirmation events demonstrate clearly that the present method of choosing Justices of the Supreme Court is and was flawed from the outset, based on assumptions that have proven false.

Since our founding we have had neither timely nor efficient Constitutional methods for blunting ANY president’s attempt at creating an imperial presidency, nor countering a power-hungry, politically monolithic Presidency, Congress, and Judiciary. Moreover, the Supreme Court, our only legal venue for protecting our Constitutional values, can not be relied upon to follow its mandate.

The U.S. until now has never had truly monolithic political parties, and most politicians would not rate 100% on one side or the other. MANY factors go into how votes on different issues come out, and why they happen at a particular time in history. What should be at issue is recognizing what core factors have made this country, through many different eras and political climates, historically on the whole the most respected, wealthiest, most accommodating, most welcoming country on this planet, and the most sought after destination by the poor, the refugee, the harassed, the persecuted. Our core values, based on the Constitution and the underlying Declaration of Independence, have made this so. Why would we want to change this and become more like what so many others would rather flee from?

That said, we must recognize that some things were not anticipated by our Founding Fathers, and so the Constitution needs to be tweaked (not destroyed) to restore in practice what they believed the original structure was capable of accomplishing, and has until recently.

Some suggest term limits for the Court but that is only a partial solution since it can’t prevent the de facto collusion of a like-minded President, Senate, and appointees to the Supreme Court whose effects can still wreak havoc under a term limits scheme. Allowing Congress or even State petitions to overrule the Court at some level is right thinking but these, some may argue, violate the Framers’ philosophy, and likely is impractical. Therefore, I propose the following:




1. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent arbitrary rule by the head of government, or collusion between parts of the federal government which would have the similar effect of arbitrary rule;

2. The members of the United States Supreme Court are human, collectively with all the faults and prejudices and partisanship that humans are prone to;

3. The current system for selecting and ratifying an appointment to the United States Supreme Court is deficient insofar as it permits partisan collusion between the President of the United States and the United States Senate to fill all vacancies in the Court with like-minded appointees during the term(s) of office of the President of the United States;

4. Under the current system any collection of such partisan appointments can become the majority and remain on the Court for several decades, spanning many administrations and Congressional sessions, with the potential of ruling in a partisan manner which may be at odds with the will of the national consensus as expressed over these decades;

5. The current system has no method of influencing or changing the makeup of the Court in any reasonable time frame should such aforementioned collusion have occurred,

and Whereas:

1. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America that members of the Supreme Court not be chosen by election and therefore would not be prone to the influences made necessary in the modern process of campaigning for election;

2. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to reduce the likelihood of Court rulings being influenced by politics, by public capriciousness and clamor, and by social influences, that they established no limits on the term of service of a Justice of the Supreme Court;

3. The framers of the Constitution of the United States of America intended that federal powers be limited and that the vast majority of legislative powers be vested in the people through their state governments,

Therefore, the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is proposed:

Section 1. Members of the United States Supreme Court

Article 1. The Supreme Court of the United States of America shall consist of one member from each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the collective United States dependencies of Guam, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands and other such territories as the United States may presently have or acquire in the future. As of the date of this document these total 53.

Article 2. Each of the authorities addressed in Section 1, Article 1 shall select their candidate for the Supreme Court by a method of their own choosing.

Subsection 1. Should no selection be made within 6 months of a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, incapacity, completion of term of service, or impeachment and removal from office, the Governor or other legally constituted head of government of that authority shall appoint the candidate.

Subsection 2. The collective dependencies addressed in Article 1 shall, upon adoption of this Amendment, establish from among their constituent territorial government heads a titular head for purposes of this Section.

Section 2. Terms of Service of Members of the United States Supreme Court

Article 1. A Justice of the Supreme Court shall serve for a single term of eight (8) years.

Article 2. The term of office of a Supreme Court Justice begins on the day of appointment and is not fixed by the calendar or any other cycle.

Section 3. Selection of the Chief Justice of the United States

Article 1. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be selected by the President of the United States from among the active Justices and immediately shall begin to serve in that office.

Section 4. Compensation of Members of the United States Supreme Court

Article 1. Compensation of Members of the United States Supreme Court shall be proposed by the United States House of Representatives and Ratified by the United States Senate.

Article 2. Compensation of Justices of the United States Supreme Court may not be considered any sooner than three (3) years after the previous ratification.

Article 3. Compensation of all Justices of the United States Supreme Court shall be equal with the exception of the Chief Justice, who shall receive fifty (50) percent additional in base compensation, exclusive of benefits.

Section 5. Acceptance of Cases

Article 1. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be the sole arbiter as to which cases involving a Constitutional issue or an issue of disagreement between two or more states may be argued before the Supreme Court.

Article 2. The Chief Justice of the United States shall, before ruling in this matter, consult with a panel of active Justices concerning the acceptance of each case requested to be heard by the Court.

Section 1. Such panel shall be constituted according to the procedures of Section 6 Article 1 Subsection 1.

Subsection 1. Such panel shall be established at the start of the term of office of the Chief Justice of the United States

and shall function through two complete terms of the Court, at which time a new panel shall be established.

Subsection 2. Upon a vacancy in such constituted panel, the Chief Justice of the United States shall within one (1) month appoint a replacement from among the remaining active Justices.

Subsection 3. The Chief Justice of the United States may not be a member of such panel.

Section 6. Apportionment of Cases

Article 1. All cases involving an issue accepted according to the procedures of Section 5 Article 1 shall be argued before a panel of nine (9) Justices.

Subsection 1. Nine (9) Justices shall be chosen by lot from among all active Justices.

Subsection 2. The Chief Justice may declare his/her intention to hear a given case prior to the start of the lottery, thereby requiring only eight (8) additional Justices for that case.

Subsection 3. If the Chief Justice does not declare for a particular case, then he/she enters the lottery equally with all other Justices.

Article 2. No Justice may hear more than three cases at the same time.

Article 3. After a panel has been selected, should a Justice be unable to hear and deliberate upon a case, the case can continue forward as long as there remain at least seven (7) Justices on the panel.

Subsection 1. Should there be less than seven (7) Justices remaining on the panel and there is no unanimous agreement of the panel to temporarily suspend a hearing or deliberations, the case shall be returned for resubmission to the lottery.

Section 7. Implementing this Constitutional Amendment

Article 1. This Constitutional Amendment shall take effect one year from the time of Ratification.

Article 2. Sitting Justices at the time of Ratification of this Amendment shall deliberate among themselves and individually declare which State or Territory they shall choose to represent. All other Justices shall be chosen per Section 1.

Article 3. By lottery, the first generation of Justices shall be divided into three (3) groups as equally as possible. Members of each group shall serve for six (6), eight (8) and ten (10) years respectively, after which the conditions of Section 2 shall prevail.

Article 4. The sitting Chief Justice at the time of Ratification of this amendment shall assume the same role, after which the conditions of Section 2 and Section 3 shall prevail.
– – – – – – – – –
SCOTUS is the one concern about modern Federal government dysfunction that is hardly ever addressed by commentators on the left or right, and it desperately needs to be.


All very interesting points Irwin, but if I’m reading your amendment correctly, it would, in effect, create an appointed super legislature. And while it has merit, it would be corrupted by the same ‘humans’ who have corrupted the current system.

My amendment would be a lot simpler:

All cases, involving the President go immediately to the supreme court – regardless of whether it is in or out of session – which shall be required to hear all of them and adjudicate them within a tight time frame – like within a week.

The SC can quicken the process by denying the injunction efforts by ‘activists’ and simplifying its reasoning by saying the president has the authority to administer all policies involving immigration for example. The SC could simply rule that such policy is up to the American People to elect the president and their congressional representatives in order to make the changes.

This would be true democracy.

Enough of this tyranny of the minority!

Furthermore, the SC must be mandated to return the national legislative agenda to the Congress (the legislative branch). Nine (actually five) unelected people in black robes with lifetime appointments must be restrained from enacting laws and policies via judicial fiat that everyone must live by.

In short, the dictatorship by judicial fiat must be ended and Congress and the President must be forced to do their job and face the people for their bills and laws rather than getting the unassailable courts to do their dirty work.


I’ve recently changed my mind, let Antifa burn down the Capitol.

Scroll to top