Highest bidder.
Posted on 12/11/2020 12:38:28 PM PST by StAnDeliver
"...It is perfectly ordinary and appropriate for the justices to write an opinion explaining the various reasons why they are rejecting Texas’ request. Indeed, the minority of justices who think that the court is required to accept original actions like Texas’ may well write short opinions of their own or note that they think the case was properly filed. So there is nothing overreaching if a majority of the court explains why the case is meritless."
"The justices’ decision whether to do that needs to account for this extraordinary, dangerous moment for our democracy. President Donald Trump, other supportive Republicans, and aligned commentators have firmly convinced many tens of millions of people that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. If that view continues to take hold, it threatens not only our national politics for the next four years but the public’s basic faith in elections of all types that are the foundations of our society."
"In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen."
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Gnashing of teeth on deck?
Deep state is way out on a limb right now.
Apparently the “expert” (yes, changed from my original inclination in characterization) writing that believes that the court has been asked to affirm or debunk “a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election” ? All they need is for the court to “tell the truth”: no such conspiracy exists ?
Me think the lady doth protest the insult re her loss of virtue... too much ?
The formal term for that being... mens rea ?
Yet... there is no mention of any such thing in any of the Texas filings ? There is no accusation of any conspiracy, and no accusation of any fraud ?
Instead, the filing notes only that defendants each failed to comply with the plain text of their own laws in conducting elections... and both that the manner of the conduct of elections violated the law, while the means employed in changing that manner violated the Constitution.
Either the election as conducted comported with the law and with the requirements of the Constitution, or it did not ?
So, the court could easily grant the “experts” desire, by ruling “we did not discover any multi-state conspiracy to steal the election, but we did find the election as conducted did not comply with the law, or the Constitution”.
Presumably, that would make everyone happy ?
The obvious defect in the non-responsive screeds posing as critics arguments is fully shared by the States response, and the piles of supporting filings tossed to the court... all howling in protest against arguments no one is making.
“Sleepy Joe hides in his basement for 98% of his so-called ‘Presidential election campaign,’ occasionally emerging to angrily yell a teleprompter speech at a few curious bystanders in empty parking lots.”
LOL!!! Still laughing. Thanks for that...
Yup.
“Boomer, all too Boomer. President Donald Trump mastered not the Art of the Deal, but the art of public relations. He was a media hero for decades, but I suspect he never quite learned that a single man can’t take on the entire Main Stream Media. Instead, he’s still playing by the old rules, and seems stunned that his side isn’t getting a fair hearing.
Thus, recently pardoned Michael Flynn’s call for President Trump to use Lincoln-like tactics to save the country and re-do the presidential election seems wildly unrealistic [Freshly pardoned Michael Flynn shares message telling Trump to ‘suspend the Constitution’ to hold a new presidential election, by Kathryn Krawczyk, The Week, December 2, 2020]. If President Trump was the type of man who could metaphorically “cross the Rubicon” and declare martial law, he wouldn’t be in this position to begin with.
In any case, action against media monopolies and ensuring social media access for his supporters would have been a far more effective tactic than legal maneuvering anyway–and this should have been prioritized day one.
I have no doubt the Supreme Court will simply duck the Texas case. Chief Justice John Roberts is yet another “conservative” appointee who has shifted left once taking the big chair, and most other justices are similarly unimpressive. Even proven fraud is being ignored and, without free speech online, the evidence can be censored.
However, that doesn’t mean the Sorelian Myth of a nationalist march on Washington, or Trump crossing the Potomac in lieu of the Rubicon, isn’t useful. After all, we already know the outright tyrannical measures that the Democrats are openly planning to impose on the American people. It is important that ordinary Americans recognize the coming Regime is illegitimate, that the GOP failed them and that, if President Trump lost, it was because he was too cautious and compromising, rather than audacious and bold.
Before even discussing breaking up the boundaries within states, forming a Third Party, taking over the GOP, or even the extreme solution of secession, people need to believe that resistance is at least possible.
And, as Peter Brimelow always reminds me, we just don’t know what Trump will do. The former casino owner might, out of sheer self-preservation, decide to throw it to the wind and declare alea iacta est—or at least give the Ruling Class one more hysterical fit.”
James Kirpatrick from VDare.com
Highest bidder.
Post 3....When did that happen?
Exactly.
MEANWHILE, not "unironically", Josh at Volokh Conspiracy has also just posted a reaction to Average Tom's calumny (geez, we gotta LOT o'lurkers) that goes like this:
Can the Supreme Court Unite to "Decimate" Texas' Original Jurisdiction Case?"I am skeptical. First, I doubt the Supreme Court would be able to muster a majority opinion that actually engages with the merits...Second, obtaining unanimity in a short time crunch has historically not fared well.
Bush v. Gore, decided on an even tighter deadline, was far more fragmented. Perhaps the only outlier, in recent memory, of a rapid unanimous decision was Dames & Moore v. Regan. The important, but non-ideological case was decided within a week.
Third, Tom suggests that Trump supporters "will listen" to a five-page Supreme Court opinion. What about the last four years have taught us that a unanimous Supreme Court decision would convince people that the election was fair?...A 9-0 decision will not change hearts and minds.
Finally, John Roberts is not Earl Warren. Hell, he isn't even Warren Burger. And according to press reports, he has created rancor among the Justices. That history makes uniting the Court much more difficult."
“ If that view continues to take hold...”
Too late. We know the truth. And there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
Oct. 29, 2020
WASHINGTON — In a little over a week, the Supreme Court issued five sets of orders in election cases. In three of them, Democrats prevailed.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote an opinion in only one of the cases, and it was only a paragraph long. It sketched out a distinction that no other justice endorsed. But that distinction can explain every one of the court’s orders.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/us/john-roberts-supreme-court-voting.html
Texas Case shut down 7-2.....
TOO LATE
80,000,000 Americans KNOW that Senile Joe did not win on election day. the crooked thumbs of those "counting" the ballots AFTER they said they were stopping on election night made sure Joke-Biden's "win" was baked into the results.
He will never be PRESIDENT. He is a crooked con man. A Chinese sell-out. A bigot who gets a pass. A man who claims he got more votes than the first black president, alongside whom he served.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
That's what he said. Be damned if I can figure what he meant.
Maybe he's saying those judges to go on a diet?
“I think there are polls showing that even 40-50% of the Democrats believe the election was stolen.”
That is about the percentage of Democrats that I would estimate are able to locate their own buttocks with both hands and a flashlight. Only the ones who cannot do so believe the election was NOT stolen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.