web analytics

Supreme Court is null and void

By Patrick Van Roy On February 24th, 2021

There is an excellent piece in the NYTs… yes you did read that correctly, occasionally they still do have them, they’ve just become far and few in between….

 

In dissent, three justices said the court should have used the case to provide guidance in future elections.

 

The Supreme Court said that it would not hear an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to disqualify mailed ballots in the 2020 presidential election that arrived after Election Day.

6 out of 3 said that since the amount ballots aren’t enough to change anything…. we don’t care. Move on…

Since Marbury vs Madison in 1803 the Supreme Court has established itself as the SOLE proprietor of what is or is NOT Constitutional. Now to me that concept in itself is shear nonsense, but it is the accepted norm in American Law.

So the last and final word on all that is Constitutional is just going to PASS on ruling if the State actions changing Constitutionally Mandated procedures are Constitutional or Not….

So tell me what do we have a Supreme Court for then ?

The arguments why it should be heard are being made by much greater minds than mine, but as just a simple man my question is if a group of Judges have designated themselves and been accepted as the Last Word in these matters and they are deciding to just say they aren’t interested because the consequences aren’t high enough what the hell good are they and when would they like to act after the bodies are in the street.

The VOTE is no longer secure to a large amount of people in the country. Countries have revolutions when they don’t have confidence in the vote….. what does anyone really believe mankind has evolved past the insanity of revolutions? Look around you…

On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the time was now right to take up the case.

“At first blush,” he wrote, “it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises. After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was not outcome determinative for any federal election. But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.”

“Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election,” Justice Thomas wrote, “we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions.”

In a separate dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, agreed that “our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” Justice Alito wrote. “But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”

Alito also ruled on NOT hearing this while the count was going on KNOWING they would have to rule on it after…

“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

“By resolving the important and recurring questions now, the court can provide desperately needed guidance to state legislatures and courts across the country outside the context of a hotly disputed election and before the next election,” their brief said. “The alternative is for the court to leave legislatures and courts with a lack of advance guidance and clarity regarding the controlling law — only to be drawn into answering these questions in future after-the-fact litigation over a contested election, with the accompanying time pressures and perceptions of partisan interest.”

Yet he couldn’t imagine the left side of the Court REFUSING to even HEAR the case where they can make their “Judgement” and there would no longer be an issue.

On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the court had missed an opportunity.

“One wonders what this court waits for,” he wrote. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.”

“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling,” Justice Thomas wrote. “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

By doing so the Supreme Court opens the door to a lot worse than “Confusion” depending on what the Democrats do over the next two years…. and then no confidence in the vote to change things if the people don’t like what’s being implemented.

One of the secrets to the US is the Peace is Kept because the People have faith in the vote, so even if you don’t like what’s going on enough other people support it because it won….. Now take that away….

That’s where the Supreme Courts INACTION has left us hanging.

All Hail our 9 elders of Wisdom…..

11 Responses to “Supreme Court is null and void”

  1. Patrick

    I have a sneaking suspicion that you are also horrified by the SCOTUS decision this week (apparently unanimous) that Trump’s tax returns (you know, the ones he promised to release during the campaign in 2016) have now finally to be released to the Manhattan DA as part of his investigation into possible Trump criminality.

    Trump has fought to keep his tax returns secret since the day he was elected and has managed to delay it by four years. You would almost think he must have something to hide, but surely not?

  2. I am against it, it’s a violation of the 4th & 5th Amendment’s.

    It’s a fishing expedition, our Bill of Rights are supposed to protect us from such abuse.

  3. Thanks Patrick

    The SCOTUS obviously thinks there is a case to be investigated and it comprehensively demolished all Trump’s arguments to stymie it. But no doubt you know the constitution better than they do.

    And of course the tax returns are already in the public domain since the NYT leaked them, so that Trump defence was null and void.

  4. With the decisions they’ve made this week Peter I’d say yes I do it know it better.

    These are just 9 men and women in robes….. to think them infallible or not capable of being politically influenced is naïve and flies in the face of History.

  5. With the decisions they’ve made this week Peter I’d say yes I do it know it better.

    Get you!

    But seriously, Trump appointed three SCOTUS judges and it has done him no good in recent months. And that’s as it should be, because separation of powers was a keystone of the Founder’s vision. Their duty is to the constitution, not the political convenience of any POTUS or any ex-POTUS. They have re-asserted the principle that in the USA no-one is above the law, not even Trump. It’s different in Saudi Arabia and Russia of course. Their rulers get away with murder, literally.

    Maybe the SCOTUS will “come good” for the Trumpists when they strike down Roe v Wade later this year. Because that’s a done deal for sure.

  6. SCOTUS has long ago lost it’s way Peter, long before Trump.

    Supreme Court Justices like EVERY elected Official should have a Term Limit.

    In the Supreme Courts case it should be a 20yr Term.

    Peter here is a book I recommend you read, I think you would actually enjoy it.

    https://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095

  7. So even the SCOTUS is now just another “deep state” traitor to the Trumpist cause, part of the lynch mob against that saintly man who has been so unjustly persecuted.

    The sense of permanent grievance among the Trumpists is truly something to behold. I guess they will still be whining about being persecuted even when Roe v Wade gets struck down.

  8. no Peter….

    and this has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Constitutional Responsibility.

    They are long off of Original Intent and now they are even off their self proclaimed intent area.

    What you don’t get, along with a large portion of people that argue from the point you are arguing from… “oh oh Trump can do know wrong in the eyes of these people”

    NO…. If they can ignore Due Process, if they can ignore the Constitution, if they can apply things to him that they legally should not be able to apply…. This man was the President of the United States, he is a Multimillionaire.

    If they can deny him his civil rights what chance does the Average Citizen have? If a Former President has no Constitutional Protections no one does.

    Where that may not be of concern to you, it is to me and a lot of others. Trump has nothing to do with it.

  9. Patrick

    If I read you right, you seem to be saying that the SCOTUS allowed an unelected president to be elected. I believe that’s been your view for months since you are 100% on board with the “stolen election” myth, as is 90% of your party members and 70% of your party voters. And roughly those numbers believe that Biden-Antifa-AOC are totally responsible for the insurrection on 6 January and I’m sure you’re on board with that one as well. In for a penny, in for a pound as we say here.

    And you also seem to be saying that a “Former President” should be above the law,especially if he’s rich? That’s a big claim to make. I doubt if George Washington would have supported it, but what the **** do I know, you’re the expert on the US constitution.

  10. no don’t assign what you think to me, just ask I’ll tell you.

    Jan 6th was a minor riot nothing more. No conspiracy on either side.

    The Election was stolen Peter, of that I am 100% convinced from my own observation of someone who has actually been elected and held the office of Judge of Elections for my county.

    Peter if they had a crime they can investigate. To seize Someone’s Papers and search through in the Hope of finding a Crime is SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED AGAINST in the Constitution.

    My point of him being rich and former President was not to say he was above the Law because of that, but to point out that if they can IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW with him. What defense and protection does the common man have?

  11. Ok Patrick, I geddit:

    1. The election was stolen. Even though every legal attempt to overturn it was defeated and votes were recounted in several states including in Georgia, by hand. And Pence was a Traitor on 6 January when he refused to overturn it after the Trump mob tried to lynch him and Pelosi.

    2. Trump is innocent of all charges, whatever charges they might bring in the future and whatever evidence they might bring against him. It will all be a fix.

    3. No-one’s papers can be seized, no matter what they may be suspected of. This would have kept Al Capone out of jail and no doubt numerous drug dealers, but heh, this is Trump, different rules apply here.

    You have always claimed that Trump should be charged if there was evidence but now you have clearly shifted that position to one that says there is no right to even gather evidence, as in taking witness testimonies. Because the request to obtain the tax returns is backed by witnesses who say that Trump may well be a criminal, it is not a “fishing expedition”.

    But I totally get that you will never accept that Trump could be guilty of anything whatso****ing ever .Because he’s your guy, so it has to be a deep state conspiracy. It’s that black and white and it’s that simple. Now if it was Hunter Biden they were going after, well that would be different for sure. Because he’s a Traitor and Trump’s a Patriot. That’s the yardstick, end of.