Posted on 12/15/2020 7:03:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This was not “judicial overreach,” this was high treason by the chief justice of the United States.
They didn’t even consider the case, which is an activism all its own.
And is coming back to bite all of us because of the anger it created.
Hear it, send it back to the states if the justices feel that it’s outside of their competence because of standing or other issues. But at least pretend to care.
Agreed. That would have been the appropriate thing to do.
I love Hillsdale and all but this guy is like 3 weeks behind.
HURR DURR - Lurgitimate Federal Judicial actions between the states is ACTIVISM.
Morons.
You KNOW it was a legitimate case because the court had to hide behind the nonsensical “you aint got standin”.
The same federal court that says illegal immigrants have standing against the federal government - but not actual citizens or, it seems, the STATES.
Why I feel and believe that the US Supreme Court miserably failed the majority of the American public by not upholding the law.
By: Saintgermaine
How so ?
In the past the US Supreme court was always ready and quick to jump in to action when it came to any civil right violation. Not to mention good old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, bless her heart and may she rest in peace, always one of the first in line to make it so and speak her piece.
We just experienced one of the greatest most monumental civil rights violations in American history perpetrated and orchestrated by a bunch of misguided and crooked actors in the background, by some referred to as deep state who were assisted by some ignorant and dumb, only too willing pawns in the foreground who thought that by helping to pull off this fraudulent voter scheme they were doing a great job and doing this nation a favor.
Along here it may be worth mentioning, considering hat there always may be some doubting Thomas’s around hat it certainly doesn’t take an MIT graduate to come to the conclusion that the results of the election were based on industrial strength fraud.
Why have Civil Rights been violated on a grand scale?
Fortunately there is still a majority of good and intact portion of the American public who believes in fair, square and just elections, with the accent on majority, may these be socialists-liberals or conservatives, as even a substantial number of socialists admits that this election was rigged. By doing so the rights of the other halve of the public who played by the rules and believed in just elections was violated on the grandest scale imaginable and by refusing to get involved either directly or indirectly our irreproachable Supreme Court cowardly shirked its responsibilities it was entrusted and paid to do by the American public.
As one recent story was passed along and reported by one of the law clerks who apparently overheard a heated discussion by the Supreme Court justices from behind closed doors, when the rest of them were told by chief justice Roberts in so many words to forget about it as it may lead to an unbelievable amount of riots.
Well that may be true, but the cowardly alternative was, that our Supreme Court decided it was OK to violate and infringe upon the civil rights of the majority of the American public. At the same token the Supreme Court could have told the American public ‘Folks a little cheating goes a long ways, but this has gone a little too far, so lets try this again and if need be under military supervision’
Let us hope that the Supreme Court may yet come to its senses and recognize the difference between right and wrong and do the job it was entrusted with. There is an old adage which states in so many words ‘ Fools never change their minds’ Before long we will find out if the Supreme
Court lived up to its purpose or if it failed this nation miserably when it needed it most.
I guess even Hillsdale hires a dud and a dope every now and then. Unfortunately, this particular Carrington knucklehead went public with his incompetence.
Federal law says the election results are supposed to be completed by the end of election day.
The several states who were sued broke that law.
The mercurial nature of the Supreme Court has been laid bare for all to see.
Caution is definitely warranted, but at least there should have been an opinion.
It is difficult to see how on the one hand, the courts have made repeated interventions in recent years striking down voter ID, redrawing Congressional districts, and approving consent agreements to destroy the state legislatures’ provisions in appointing electors, and yet on the other hand The Court Must Stay Out Of Elections when it helps a Republican.
Without an opinion, the Court has made clear that this question can in fact be relitigated in ten years in favor of a Democrat candidate without even the pretense of reversing precedent.
No, by avoiding the issue, the Court has firmly voted For Biden, and not in service of any higher ideal.
Absolutely.
Only the Left can use Judicial Activism. The Right should bend over an take it.
/sarc
Jerkwads like this have not figured out that the Left is an existential threat and that we need to use any weapon that comes to hand as ruthlessly as we can.
The electors have one day to vote
The people that state legislators allow to appoint the electors have as much time as their state legislators choose.
Judges opened cans of worms.
Other judges should have stuffed the worms back into their cans.
Setting aside the few Democrats I have known to be Reagan Democrats . . .
The remaining Democrats - leftists, liberals, progressives, and socialists - have proven by themselves, to be virulent threatening bullies.
California’s Senator Feinstein is an example.
Bush’s John Roberts is an example.
However such “leaders” are described as being compromised, they will - instead of defying their bullies - join with their bullies and blame, bully, and turn virulent toward other people.
The “other people” being those who hold up a mirror for these “leaders” to reflect in, and upon such “leaders” actions.
Always, it seems the easier path for such “leaders” to attack anywhere . . . but where the leftists are the actual threat.
Liberals were divided, and enough still used to fondly describe their ideal of individualism up into the early 1970’s; but the other liberals increased in pack animal number - becoming larger gangs of projectionists.
The Supreme Court has the power to adjudicate all legal matters arising from the Constitution.
Oh, blank off!
Damn cowardly so-called “conservatives”.
bookmark
Section 11 of the Pennsylvania constitution states all courts are open.
Let's look at this differently ...
Suppose Pennsylvania carried out their election in such a way that black voters were somehow completely disenfranchised -- i.e., that the governor and/or secretary of state effectively imposed an election procedure designed to ensure that turnout among black voters was 0.
Would this be an issue that warranted a remedy in a court of law? Absolutely.
Would this be an issue that would give the State of Texas the legal standing to file a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? Absolutely NOT.
In this hypothetical scenario, those who had the legal standing to challenge the results of the election would be the voters who were disenfranchised, not another state government.
That's basically what the U.S. Supreme Court said here.
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.