I predicted days ago the United States Supreme Court would not issue decisions on the election lawsuits based on the law or Constitution, but based on how the justices in the middle felt.
I was skeptical of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, having researched them in the past for articles when President Trump first started considering them to be on the Supreme Court. Their records were devoid of much to judge them on, and each one had a decision or two that could be construed as questionable. While all were members of The Federalist Society, that is meaningless other than they have the guts to identify as leaning to the right. I was president of the Federalist Society at my law school and there was no litmus test to join, anyone could join and have zero activity, and it was comparable to joining the AARP. So I was not surprised when Gorsuch and Kavanaugh issued disappointing rulings after being appointed. Roberts, we knew, had already gone off the reservation.
Those four justices are concerned about their public perception. They’ve seen how the left has portrayed anyone challenging the felony election fraud as conspiracy theorists. The most powerful man in the world, formerly both a Democrat and RINO Republican, has been made out to look like a conspiracy theorist. If they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone. Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and it only requires a simple majority in the House of Representatives. Two-thirds of the Senate is then required to remove them. One Supreme Court justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, although he was not removed. So it would be a very humiliating experience for justices not used to being in the public eye much. Sadly, some attorneys aspire to be on the Supreme Court because they’re narcissists. They want the fame and glory. Ruling in favor of Trump would very likely set them up for impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House.
There is a lot of wiggle room in the law to issue decisions based on how you feel, then interpret the law to match that, which is referred to as judicial activism. For example, many of the lower courts have found small technicalities to throw out lawsuits, such as timing. Well, there are always reasons to overcome timing constraints, such as if there were crimes committed. Statutes of limitations are often waived or extended when crimes are found. And bringing lawsuits prior to the election would not have been “ripe,” since the fraud hadn’t occurred yet to change the election results.
And what those judges aren’t telling you, is that there are plenty of ways they could have ruled in favor of the election challenges. For example, a lack of chain of custody for handling the ballots is grounds for throwing out the election results in that region and ordering a new election. But no one ever talks about that when they say the judges had no choice but to follow the law.
In the Texas case, the Supreme Court chose to use an easy technical way to get out of accepting the case: standing. Stanford Law Professor Daniel Ho and Stanford law student Erica Ross wrote a law review article entitled “Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine? An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006.” They found that progressives came up with the standing doctrine in the 20th century in order to shield New Deal programs from judicial review. It’s not even in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was so arrogant they didn’t bother providing an explanation other than the vague proclamation that "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."
The court completely ignored the fact that election fraud occurred in several states, wrongly tipping those states to Biden and hence the election, which disenfranchised voters in the other states that went for Trump. The court was the only remedy since it decides controversies between the states and constitutional issues. The Electors Clause states that state legislatures shall make the laws conducting presidential elections. Those states violated it by allowing election officials to supersede the legislature with various orders and rules, making election fraud easy. The Texas brief showed how the Supreme Court had accepted similar cases in the past, and clearly laid out the fraud.
Some conservatives are holding out hope that Trump will win in other court cases. There is little chance of that. As we’ve already seen in other election cases, the lower courts are dominated by left-wing judges and RINOs. And the Supreme Court is not likely to give Trump a win when they blew off the most substantial case on the flimsiest of grounds.
Republican-controlled state legislatures in swing states aren’t going to switch their electoral votes to Trump. We’ve already seen the small number of Republican legislators in those states willing to stick their necks out. It’s not enough.
Nor will Congress decline to certify the electors from contested states. The Electoral Count Act says one House member and one Senate member can opt for each House delegation providing one vote under the Twelfth Amendment instead. Because there are more Republican states, some are hopeful Trump can win. However, we saw that only 126 House Republican members supported the Texas lawsuit. The numbers aren’t there.
Even though the legislative hearings and court battles are not likely to change the election results, it is still worth it to keep fighting. Dr. Bobby Lopez, a former humanities professor and author of "Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman" reminds us to learn from history. When the Warren Commission came out with its report on how JFK was assassinated, people didn’t just accept it and move on. They continued investigating, suspecting the government had lied to them. Today, 61% of Americans believe there were others involved in JFK’s shooting than just Lee Harvey Oswald.
We may not be able to stop election fraud in the future; this may be the end of our representative democracy and the beginning of rule by a handful of powerful oligarchs who control elections as they do in Third World countries, shifting the country to socialism. But we can’t lie down and take it. There aren’t any better countries to move to. Nor can we simply move to red states and segregate ourselves because the left uses the federal government to control those states. Leftists also move into red states and transform them, as appears to be the case in Arizona.
Right now, everyone knows Trump won the election in a landslide. They can’t take that away. It’s just a matter of outsmarting the left and figuring out how to deal with election fraud when most of our institutions won’t. The left controls the MSM, big tech, education, Hollywood, the judiciary, and state bars. But there has to be a way to stop massive felony voter fraud. Maybe the civil unrest that is brewing will lead to changes. It is only going to get worse as Democrats reveal they are not going to stop the lockdowns anytime soon even if Biden is in office.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member