Tuesday News Roundup: The Supreme Court Betrays America and the Constitution in Pennsylvania Decision

Hey, remember how your Democrat friends all told you what a wonderful, fair, cerebral, non-partisan judge Merrick Garland is supposed to be? – Yeah, he’s just another leftwing partisan Democrat who refuses to honestly answer questions in a congressional hearing:

“I don’t know…I don’t know…I don’t know…I don’t know.” He’s the perfect attorney general for this sock puppet presidency.

We are so screwed.

Today’s Short-Term Memory Reminder. – I’m old enough to remember when it was Donald Trump who was supposed to be a totalitarian. But hey, that was always a lie – everyone with functioning synapses in their cranial cavities knows it is the Democrat Party that has always striven to take our country down the road to despotism, and today’s Democrats are no exception to that 200-year rule.

Yesterday, we discovered that congressional Democrats are now trying to bully cable/streaming companies into dropping news networks that they do not approve of. Take a look:

Hilariously, these authoritarian Dems pretend to base their efforts at censorship on “moral or ethical principles”:

Image

It’s absolutely surreal. You could never make this stuff up if it didn’t already exist.

Speaking of authoritarians… – Congressman Ro Khanna served as campaign manager for The Commie, Bernie Sanders, for a very good reason: He’s a commie, too.

You don’t have to believe me – just listen to him talk to some fake journalist on CNN about his desire to put any business that can’t afford to pay a $15 minimum wage out of business:

That’s pure communism. You either redistribute your wealth exactly the way the government demands you do it, or you don’t stay in business. Profits don’t matter; your business’s value to the community doesn’t matter; the fact you’d have to fire half your employees in order to pay that hourly wage doesn’t matter; you either do as your government masters tell you to do or you don’t do business.

And Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders and 2/3rds of the congressional Democrat caucus will the thrilled to see you and your jobs go. Despicable.

How about this walk down memory lane? – Check this out as China Joe Biden tells David Letterman that he was arrested for going into the U.S. senate chamber and taking over the presiding officer’s seat, just as that nitwit in the viking horns did on January 6:

Now, there’s little doubt Biden’s lying here, given that he lies with the regularity that most people urinate, but man, what a thing to admit to doing. Just another inconvenient little video for the Democrats and their mindless voters.

Right on cue, the Supreme Court betrays the American people one more time. – I warned you all a few weeks ago that the decision by the Supreme Court to schedule a day to consider whether to formally hear three of the Trump election challenges in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan would likely end badly for us and the Constitution.

Many were excited because they labored under the misimpression that the Court had agreed to hear these three cases, but in reality all it was doing was trying to decide whether or not to put any of them on the docket. I also told you that it was almost certain that the Court would refuse to hear the Georgia or Michigan cases, but that it should hear the Pennsylvania case since it so clearly involved a stark constitutional violation in which the state’s courts changed voting rules by judicial fiat. But I also warned you that the justices would find some technical excuse not to hear that case as well.

All of that came to fruition on Monday, as the Court refused to hear any of the three cases:

From the story at National Review:

Few things are worse for public confidence in elections than having the rules changed in the middle of the game (or after it). An epidemic of late-in-the-day changes to the rules was particularly corrosive in 2020. Courts are ill-equipped to referee those changes when partisan tempers are running hot. The Supreme Court just threw away its last opportunity to remedy that problem before the next election cycle.

The Court this morning turned away the remaining challenges to the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. Some of these challenges were legally meritless, and none of them offered any legitimate grounds to change the outcome of the presidential election, but the Pennsylvania case in particular raised a serious, recurring issue of election law: whether state courts or state executive officials can use the general, open-ended terms of state constitutional provisions to throw out specific rules passed by state legislatures governing federal elections. Articles I and II of the Constitution reserve to state legislatures the power to set rules for federal elections.

That’s exactly what happened in Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania supreme court used the Pennsylvania Constitution’s general guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” as an excuse to invalidate the state legislature’s explicit deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. That deadline was enacted in 2019 and left untouched in revisions to the mail-in ballot rules during the pandemic in 2020. The Court should have heard the case before Election Day, in order t0 ensure that the rules of the road were set in advance. Refusing to hear the case either before the election or after the election guarantees that the issue remains unsettled for the next election.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a dissent blasting the Court for repeatedly ducking this issue (Alito added his own dissent). Normally, federal courts will not hear cases once they are moot, and that would normally be the situation here: Justice Thomas noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Pennsylvania deadline extension changed the result of any federal election…

[The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable. . . . An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.

That does sound familiar, doesn’t it? Thomas detailed why contests involving mail-in ballots, which were once treated with skepticism even by the New York Times and election-law experts, were more complicated to litigate quickly, and thus presented even greater mootness problems: “Five to six weeks for judicial testing is difficult enough for straightforward cases. For factually complex cases, compressing discovery, testimony, and appeals into this timeline is virtually impossible.” He specifically noted the compressed timeline imposed in presidential elections by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. And Justice Thomas warned of the particular problems the Court faces in trying to handle politically charged cases in the middle of voting, pointing to a South Carolina case where the Court ended up ordering one rule for ballots cast after its decision, and another for ballots already cast.

[End]

Note that two of President Trump’s three nominees for the Court ruled against the American people and the Constitution in this decision, and you see how screwed we all really are.

Be careful out there.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than Whatfinger.com is the only real conservative alternative to Drudge, and deserves to become everyone’s go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

33 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gregg

Gypo and Jonesy,

Your points about mister roberts not wanting to open up a Pandora’s box with endless donkey election challenges in the future just don’t hold water. roberts could care less about what cases might come forward in the future because: 

The court can always decline to hear them like they did this time.

Leftist courts never have cared about precedents either. If they want to change (legislate) something, they will regardless of tradition, societal norms or “precedents”.

The SC took the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, in part to prevent donkey election fraud and a rogue Florida Supreme Court that was siding with Algore all the time.

No, the court is bought lock, stock and barrel by the Left and is just another rubber stamp like Hitler’s Nazi courts were from 1933 –1945, and Stalin’s and Mao’s too.

There might be a couple of minor conservative rulings now and then just to keep the appearance of constitutional intent to prevent open revolt, but they will be narrow rulings and reverse nothing of consequence.

20-mile radius  X 20-mile deep DC sinkhole now!

Leanna

So it’s a moot point. Why? If a crime has been committed, how can there be a moot point? If someone is murdered, and ten years later the murderer is discovered, do we just say Oh well, it doesn’t matter now. He is dead, his wife remarried, so no point in bringing the murderer to trial. Some crazy decisions have come out of the SC recently, but that is the lamest excuse yet for not being fair and honest judges. Future elections are in jeopardy, it should be investigated to eliminate as much fraud in the future as possible. Out of 9 SC judges, only 3 are honest and uncorrupted.

Madam DeFarge

The SC, Supreme Cowards have struck again. Maybe have all have been to Epstein’s Island, but most likely are too afraid of what antifa, and blm will do to them and their families..

Ray

Dishonorable and supremely corrupt. Is there any doubt that Epstein and Roberts were best buddies?

Gypo O'Leary

I firmly believe that John Roberts is trying to establish a precedent that prevents the Democrats from constantly taking elections to the courts. If he accepts this case, you can be certain that every single election will be contested by the Democrats in the court system. They abuse everything they can figure out how to abuse.

And although everyone wants to scape-goat Roberts or Pence, the fact is that there was a single constitutional safeguard to the fraud that occurred. The legislatures of the States are responsible for the conduct of their elections.

Although at the Guiliani hearings, all the R. legislators showed up and babbled their boiler plate patriotism, the bottom line is that they did nothing. They were asleep at the gate when the Democrats railroaded through all the cheat components…mail in ballots, extended deadlines, no signatures verifying. All because they didn’t want to be anti-covid or called racist, they stood down. Then after the election, Guiliani told them they needed to call themselves in to special session and throw out the electors. They did nothing.

Sure, it would be great now if Roberts took the case…and great if Pence refused to accept the certified electors from the States. But the bottom line is the Legislators had the responsibility and they did not act.

Leanna

Plenty of blame to go around. Plenty of betrayers of the American people.

Jonesy

Your comment on Robert’s wish to not set a precedent on hearing election cases is spot on. It would open Pandora’s box, and then ANY little issue in the future would be litigated ad nauseum. Every election would be disputed. What sucks is, justice loses out for the 2020 election, and Trump was not given the chance to have his day in court. That spawns another problem – our elected officials are incapable of setting aside their greed and ambitions to do anything right, and we the people get weaker every day.

Yiddishlion

Justice Roberts’ child porn collection must be absolutely massive!

Last edited 5 days ago by Yiddishlion
Robert

We have No President, No election,, No law, No justice and No SCOTUS. We do have a WH full of traitors, A congress full of liars bought and paid for by the CCP, A Court system that, in a sane world, would be held up as a joke. We stood still! Now we will receive what we all deserve

RPS

At some point Americans will experience enough pain to realize only Divine intervention will restore an honest, peaceful, and happy government. When enough people cry out to Him, then the real change will come.

Madam DeFarge

That point was lost when they stole the election. Your God does not care how many millions of Trump supporters they murder. The democrats, and their masses, with the aid of main stream media, rich elites, tech giants, and all our government agencies are no better that 1930’s nazi germany, and they murdered 6 million plus. How many millions of Russians did stalin murder? How many Chinese did moa murder?

Justista

JUSTICE Roberts, now that’s irony!

[…] Tuesday News Roundup: The Supreme Court Betrays America and the Constitution in Pennsylvania Decisio… 0 0 vote Article Rating […]

Patriot Sam

2A exists for a reason.

biden is a thief

the country has to go to the bottom before it rises; we ain’t there yet.

NJLamer

There is NO JUSTICE in America. The Chinese bought ELECTION of 2020 will be known as the Fall of the Republic.They hate us and now want us dead… We have to replace them all with Humans.

BraveUlysseus

This decision (or lack thereof) will go down as the Dred Scott and Fred Korematsu decisions of the 21st century. Any casual observor of US History in the last 200 years realizes it is a tale of the State’s abuse of the peoples’ natural rights. And yet, 6 or our supposedly best and brightest couldn’t summon the intellectual and emotive honesty to even consider the cases as those commensurate with the public interest.

Boarwild

Unfortunately IMHO the entire legal system is rotten to the core; more leftist indoctrination. Look @ which candidates the ABA supports.

Moreover, the reality is that the SC picks from the Uniparty all come from the same well: the so-called “Ivy League”: Yale/Harvard/Dartmouth, etc. They’re only different by degrees & those selected for the SC don’t want to do anything that might bring about sneering/derision from their “peers/alumni” either on the DC cocktail circuit or when they return to their alma mater for events.

James Sibelius

So what alternative do We the People have than to violently overthrowing the illegal elected President, Vice-President (and probably others)? Isn’t the second amendment there to act as a deterrent to totalitarianism? Since every branch of our government is infected with liberalism and complicit with the globalists, are we to surrender or fight? I am sure that asking these questions is considered domestic terrorism, but not the work of BLM, antifa, or those caught cheating in the last election.

Warren Lockaby

I’m still praying that final recourse can be avoided, but it doesn’t look very hopeful from here and it worsens by the day. Satan’s spawn have been working for decades to bring us to this point, and we mortals can’t expect to turn things around without Divine guidance and maybe intervention, so please folks, keep praying. And keep your powder dry.

Last edited 5 days ago by Warren Lockaby
Keith

You are exactly right,because the Supreme Court,DOJ,FBI refuses to do their constitutional duties violence is the only answer. The Nazi communist d stoled the election,if the Supreme Court,FBI don’t do their jobs it’s up to the American people to remove and execute these treasonous traitors.

delow24

It is disgraceful how the court twisted itself in knots to declare that before the election no party can have “standing” as they were not harmed. Then after the election they declare it “moot” that someone is harmed by the actions. These people are evil.

Gregg

Letterman talking to btfsplk = one turd talking to another turd.

Gregg

The Left wanted the 2020 election controversy/theft, but not the results, to go away.

The MSM (D) wanted the election to go away.

The winning donkey politicians and most of the congressional elephant politicians wanted the election to go away.

The elephants in the various state legislatures wanted the election to go away.

A certain governor and secretary of state from Georgia wanted the election to go away.

The AG and his DOJ wanted the election to go away.

Dominion, Xi, Putin, and every other foreign and domestic anti-America globalist wanted the election to go away.

The courts wanted the election to go away.

And poof! Just like that the supreme court made the 2020 election go away. They also set the precedent that codifies the total corruption of all future elections on all levels.

***

Two out of the three Trump sc appointees screwed Trump and the country one last time. I’m shocked, SHOCKED! I tell ya.

Perhaps the cj, mister roberts was right when he said there are no 0bama judges, no bush judges…

Most every federal judge (with few exceptions) is either corrupt, compromised or a dyed-in-the wool Leftist.

Remember how we were so happy when then majority leader mcconnell was able to magically push through hundreds of “Trump judges” in record time? And we were especially amazed at is tactical brilliance in getting ACB confirmed to the sc so quickly just prior to the election? Well, now we know why he was able to do so with such relative ease – the “Trump sc judges” weren’t going to be constitutional conservatives. They were going to punt the difficult cases and/or surreptitiously and tactically rule in such a manner where no real conservative/constitutional decisions are going to be rendered.   Mister Roberts has probably assured that outcome to Schumer so as to avoid the need to blatantly “pack the court”. Why spike the ball when you don’t have to?

Whoever advised President on most of his judicial and executive picks deliberately sabotaged his presidency with virtually all of them stabbing him in the back one way or the other. And as brilliant as Trump was in dealing with all the bogus attacks against him and in getting a lot done to MAGA, he was unbelievably inept in so many of his appointments.

Bush Jr. was going to nominate his personal lawyer to fill a key SC judgeship until he got major pushback from his side. Why couldn’t Trump have seen that (especially since he had studied the ways of Washington, DC for decades prior to running) virtually everyone in that sewer was going to screw a reformer president such as himself?

Surely Trump had many other options from his business days to bring to Washington than to appoint so many of the deep-state hacks that either worked so hard behind the scenes to destroy or at best neuter his administration and block him from draining the swamp.

On the other hand, maybe he didn’t have many options from his business days since his own (former) personal lawyer betrayed him and, I’m guessing, many, if not most of his business friends/partners who he could trust probably declined the positions offered because they didn’t want to take the pay cut, be scrutinized, and have to put up with all the DC BS including malicious compliance and outright insubordination from unfireable subordinates who dominate the DC culture.

Maybe Trump had no good choices for most of his leadership positions and judges and would have had a hard time of getting good people confirmed. If that was the case, he should have had a revolving door of firings and acting directors appointed for his whole term. And since there is no requirement to appoint federal judges to the SC, he should have gone the private lawyer route.

I think it was William Buckley who coined the phrase about how you could randomly pick the names out of a city phonebook and fill the 538 congressional seats (and I’ll add) and the entire 1,000 or so members of the federal judiciary and do better than what we have now. I’ll go one step further with that: Randomly replace 1/3rd of the whole lot on two-year cycles so that no one stays in DC for more than six years. And the former pols and judges would also be disqualified from becoming rich permanent lobbyists and be made to leave DC forever.

Justme

Such a complete sweep; all three branches of government, major corporations, media, big tech, academia, sports, Hollyweird, et al. What has God wrought? “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18

Scroll to top
33
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x