Jerome Michael’s does a good job of taking the Supreme Court to task on the subject of election fraud and the importance of their sidestepping the issues of ramifications.
I encourage readers to visit American Thinker but for the sake of convenience am posting the article here in full.
A Supreme Court in Hiding is Dangerous for Our Country
By Jerome Michaels
In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk.
I recently wrote a suggested Supreme Court opinion. It said the Court must decide “credible and significant” claims of election wrongdoing on their merits before elected officials are sworn in—-except for the President, where the Constitution provides a fallback political method of election. My article suggested what the Supreme Court should do. This article discusses their inaction and warns of the consequences if the justices continue to run and hide.
Americans paying attention to the 2020 Election must be baffled by our courts. A thousand sworn statements about election wrongdoing, bizarre 4 a.m. “vote spikes” for one candidate, hundreds of thousands of ballots driven from one state to the another, counting machines with 68% error rates, etc., etc. Such claims should at least get a day in court.
Yet so far, they can’t get a sniff. With few exceptions, no state or federal court in our country has had the courage to look at the merits of these claims. The most significant challenge to our Constitutional Republic since the first Civil War can’t get a parking ticket.
The Pennsylvania Supremes liked “laches” or simply put, “you waited too long.” The claim asserted was simple—- the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize mail-in voting so the legislature can’t do it. (One brave judge said “good point” and was promptly swept away by her betters). The Pennsylvania Supremes said you had to sue before the election. Of course, if you had, they would have said “go away you haven’t been injured.” Welcome to the legal Land of Oz.
The Michigan Federal Court liked a different spin on “too late.” They used “mootness” which means “too late because the thing you feared already happened and this court can’t fix it now.” While the Plaintiff had been frantically waving his arms begging the courts to stop certification, the political forces in Michigan went ahead and certified anyhow as the courts snoozed. Sorry, bub — too late.
The free and fair election crowd went for a positive spin — “No problem; doesn’t matter.” The newly minted, conservative Supreme Court is the main game. Lower courts getting out of the way is much like the Chicago Bulls clearing the other kind of court so Michael Jordan could take the last shot.
In a stroke of brilliance every non-brainwashed citizen could see, the State of Texas stepped up with the answer. An original complaint to the Supreme Court where the States that followed their election laws sued the States that violated theirs. The claim was also simple — we jointly elect the President as a group of 50 States and our vote is being nullified since four States cheated. The argument was especially strong because if results from the four cheating States were reversed the election result changed.
Since State vs. State is an original complaint to the Supreme Court (not an appeal) the Court had the flexibility to handle it any way they wanted. Twenty-three other States and the campaigns joined in, making it a perfect solution because almost all the players were present and the Court could do whatever was right.
Well, the Supreme Court justices decided to do the one thing that wasn’t right — they ran and hid. “Texas, you have no standing to complain about another State violating its own laws.” What?
The Constitution specifically says States suing other States can file Original Complaints with the Supreme Court. And while, generally, it may be true one State can’t complain about another State violating its own laws—-what in the world does that have to do with a situation where the 50 States jointly elect a President? With all due (rapidly diminishing) respect, what the Supreme Court said is utter nonsense. In the most important game in history, Michael took the ball, put it down on the court, and walked away as time ran out.
So, what are we seeing and where is this going? Simply put, judges are meek by nature and we are seeing the biggest “judicial deer in the headlights” in our history. It’s the nature of the beast. After all, who become judges? Former lawyers. Lawyers fight for a living. They fight for clients, they fight with partners, and they fight each other in cases.
When these lawyers have had enough fighting (or are not very good at it) they become judges. Once ensconced on that raised podium, a judge tries like crazy to avoid the fighting.
Ninety-plus percent of cases settle. Why? The judges and the system browbeat parties and their attorneys to avoid the fight with forced mediation and mandatory settlement conferences. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it does reflect the judges’ desire to be left alone. The “RBG as a crusading force for good” image is either a fantasy or a rare exception.
Make no mistake—-the American court system is terrified by the 2020 Election lawsuit claims. Think about it. If substantially proven, the claims establish that one of the major political parties mounted a coordinated effort to illegally steal a Presidential election. The courts are hiding under their collective beds and hoping the bad orange man will just go away. To reinforce this natural fear of conflict, the Left has seeded this ground with doxxing, cancel culture, and riots by Antifa and BLM.
With the 2020 election, there will be grave consequences following the Supreme Court’s insistence on being left alone. Earlier, I focused on the beginning section of the Declaration of Independence, the part saying a just government only exists with the consent of the People through free and fair elections.
The next part of the Declaration has a much darker side which the Supreme Court may bring into play if it stays in its rabbit hole. The Declaration is plain: The People have a duty to overthrow the government if it is not justly based on their collective consent. That duty reaches a critical stage when all the institutions fail them. The Supreme Court may have been our last hope. So far, the justices have utterly failed us.
Assuming the Supreme Court continues to avoid its primary reason for living — protecting the Constitution — can we expect a Second Declaration of Independence, followed by conflict, to address this fundamental failure? I hope not. That is the last thing any of us should wish.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has the power to avoid such an outcome by protecting election integrity. If it does not and, instead, completes the failure of our political and judicial institutions, history will record that the Supreme Court’s dereliction was a major cause of any conflict that follows. At the moment the People need them most, the Justices are running and hiding. Disgraceful. They must step up to keep the future of our Country safe and whole.