Posted on 02/01/2026 4:58:52 AM PST by MtnClimber
Congratulations, Chief Justice Roberts. You kept your hands clean. But at what cost?
The “stock in trade” of judges is trust. The only thing that gives a jurist’s opinion weight is public confidence that the guy in the black robe honestly and properly applied the law as prescribed by his oath. Unfortunately, courts at all levels seem to gleefully disregard the importance of that trust.
Local judges appear uninterested in public order. Their release of violent offenders with low or no bail to prey on the innocent has become an epidemic.
District judges are busily trying to nullify an election. They are ruling that Congress may neither legislate nor appropriate and that the president needs their permission to enforce duly enacted laws and conduct foreign affairs.
The Supreme Court sits atop that chaos, more concerned with conflict avoidance that defense of the Constitution. We are galled by the chief justice’s gaslighting that the Article III branch of government can be trusted. His claim that “there are no Obama judges, Biden judges, nor Trump judges” was a lie that he insisted we accept despite what we were clearly observing.
For elections to work, mere accuracy is insufficient. They must be transparent and beyond reproach, not riddled with question marks. There will always be millions of Americans dissatisfied with the outcome of any one election, but we expect them to abide by the outcome, because it represents the will of the majority. A peaceful transfer of power depends on the minority believing that an election does in fact represent the will of the majority.
Unfortunately, the conduct of the 2020 election created suspicion rather than confidence.
- A pandemic was used to justify rule changes that loosened election controls.
- The MSM hid relevant information from the voters until after the election.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No matter how corrupt and/or dysfunctional the 2020 election may have been, there is no place in the Constitution for the U.S. Supreme Court to insert itself into a presidential election that is designed to be carried out among the states according to their own individual processes. A state government that violates its own laws in the conduct of the election doesn’t answer to the federal courts in the matter. The states are sovereign, and answer only to their own legislatures in matters related to a presidential election.
That’s why Election Day and the “popular vote” are meaningless. They are designed for TV audiences, and that’s pretty much it.
The only election that matters is the Electoral College vote that is held in mid-December after Election Day in a presidential election year. Any disputes or controversies in individual states should be addressed before that vote, or — if they can’t be resolved — by submitting competing slates of electors for the joint session of Congress in early January before the inauguration date.
To be clear, we will never know if Donald Trump won the 2020 election. But we may learn something far more troubling: that we can’t know who won.
100% false. We know exactly who won, and it wasn’t even a matter of dispute because there wasn’t a single state that submitted multiple slates of presidential electors to Congress.
We can't do anything about 2020. It's all in the past.
For the next election in 2028, we can warn blue states like California that they have 24 hours to announce a winner.
No winner announced? They're disqualified from the Electoral College.
2. There was not only fraud, but its process was organized, and probably duplicated nationwide. After the Fraud, there has been a deliberate cover up and attempt to change or delay the narrative from becoming public knowledge. This included elements of the intelligence community, state officials, FBI, and even potentially the speaker of the house. The American public has been completely gaslighted for years about elections.
From a post way back...
Despite the fact that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is a penalty for states where vote-counting fraud has occurred, the compromised Supreme Court wrongly hid behind its constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse (imo) when Texas and other states tried to complain about alleged ballot box tampering in Pennsylvania and other renegade states.
Note the zero tolerance "hair triggers" in that section that the Supremes, Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored imo when lawmakers voted to accept Biden's electoral votes in 2020 despite allegations of vote-counting problems.
is denied to any
or in any way abridged,
Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]
Section 5 of 14A: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In fact, here's third-party opinion that Section 2 is being ignored.
No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause
The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section
Regarding the wrongly ignored Section 2, Thomas Jefferson had warned against ignoring parts of the Constitution.
The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445
The Supreme's also ignored their constitutionally enumerated obligations to resolve disputes between the states concerning 2020 elections imo, the Court having original jurisdiction for disputes between the states.
In fact, it so happens that Justice Joseph Story had noted the following about how the original colonies had handled disputes between themselves. The colonies had previously afforded themselves having disputes between themselves heard by the highest authority for any reason whatsoever as a last effort to try to preserve the confederacy. One of the reasons that the drafters of the constitution made 3.2.1 below was to preserve this same right for conflicted states.
Article III, Secion 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
The major constitutional problem with the Supreme Court's “no standing” excuse to Texas in the context of "to Controversies between two or more states" as it concerns allegations of wrongdoing in 2020 elections is this imo. Justice Joseph Story had indicated that the drafters of the Constitution had preserved the right of the original colonies to take other colonies to the highest authority in the land for any complaint whatsoever as a final hope to preserve the confederation.
or any other cause whatsoever
§ 1674. Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [emphasis added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
§ 1675. Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
Because the Supremes unconstitutionally looked the other way (imo) when some states cried fowl concerning alleged vote-counting problems in 2020 elections, the Court deserves at least a part of the blame (imo) for the social unrest that is now happening, evidenced for example by resistance to ICE in renegade states.
This is news to me. Do you have a source for this?
you know I heard somewhere that “the fierce whirlwind of the Lord goes forth with fury and falls upon the HEAD of the wicked.” now where was that?
These days, many logic-only based people no longer accept a “divine” intervention concept... but that makes for a lot more fun and adventure... in the ‘teachable’ moments, as things happen around us, visibly and live in real time.
As a nation we have been weighed in the balances and are found short of the requirements. That is my opinion.
You’ll probably feel differently when New York and California are suing to disqualify Florida’s electoral votes.
true that, but I think Roberts has destroyed it himself... Fulton may be the “amplifier” of the signal... but the perversion of the law, has flowed through Roberts... empowered by the imperial “democratically elected” houses of governance.
You know, that is something to consider…. Didn’t think of that.
Great point
Roberts showed his traitorous heart when he refused to review over a dozen state’s lawsuits about the DNC corruption of the 2020 election and the unconstitutional behavior of swing states.
He declined ‘cause he didn’t want there to be public disorder. He can only be trusted when it suits his purpose. No further.
Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Elections Clause, states, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of [choosing] Senators." State governments have initial and principal authority for administering elections within their jurisdictions, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution provides that the federal government maintains authority over elections, including guarding the safety and integrity of congressional elections. For example, the Supreme Court held that the Elections Clause embraces Congress's authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections and that "Congress may supplement ... state regulations or may substitute its own," including imposing "additional penalties for the violation of the state laws or provide independent sanctions." Smiley, 285 U.S. at 366-67.
The Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 808–09 (1995) further observed that by providing Congress with override authority over the states, the Framers of the Constitution sought to avoid states potentially abusing their power over congressional elections.
No because there won’t be a cause. Cheating is Criminal
A judge is a lawyer who is supported by the taxpayers.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put another way: most judges are people with law degrees that are unable to make a living in private practice?
(recent exceptions: scalia, thomas, alito)
Slight difference in emphasis: more votes than ballots cast.
In PA alone there were 205,000 more votes than people who cast ballots. That prompted a 2 hour debate on J6, and has since been amended to 121,000 votes unaccounted for, although there is no rational explanation for the update either.
More votes than people who voted also happened in Michigan (and by similar numbers). Both the Wayne County Board of Elections and the MI State BoE correctly refused to certify their 2020 election for this reason. So yes, there were massive problems.
Particularly as the denied the petition of a number of states to hear the case.
John Roberts has much to answer for.
I also think that the roll out of a lot of the Trump Administration investigations and disclosures is timed to put the heat on the Supreme Court and force them to do the right thing instead of the past Roberts Court history of dubious and highly politicized rulings
Unfortunately, Trump failed with Kavanaugh and Barrett.
I agree, based upon history of the Republic, that complaints of State on State were to be granted hearing at the SCOTUS. They denied Texas, because of lack of standing. All States have Standing in a Federal Election, because all the citizens and the Union are at stake. This decision smacked of a coverup from the start, and Roberts will have no credibility if fraud is proven in Georgia.
The FBI and the DOJ can regain trust. I am uncertain where the SCOTUS could go after this, if they ignored their sworn duty and the law.
Votes could be buffered in voting machines and randomly posted online when the buffer count is surpassed.
state/jurisdiction/machine serial number/initial forward time/voting page number assigned at the initial forward time/voting page image
The voting machine would not be directly connected to the internet, but would optically transmit to a machine that was.
“I don’t think SCOTUS wants to be at the heart of that despite being one of their primary functions of sole arbitrators of legal Gordian knots.“
The SCOTUS denied Texas standing, and Roberts will not be in a position to untie the Gordian not. Thus, someone will have to cut it (Alexander’s choice). We, as a people and a nation, have arrived at a very very dangerous moment.
If Fraud is found, 1. how do we move on and how do we protect the system? 2. How many have to hang to make sure people actually have a right to vote, and those votes count and aren’t diluted? 3. What do we do with the SCOTUS members who helped gaslight and coverup? 4. What do we do with the Congress people, were they even elected fairly? 5. How about the myriad of laws and regulations put into place? 6. How about the national debt?
If there is fraud, they will attempt to use Propaganda and AI information and ability, the media, media influencers, and government insiders and leaks to attempt to control the narrative. When you see this, then you will know that FBI and the DOJ are going to release.
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.