Posted on 12/14/2020 9:59:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The courts have spoken, one after another. Some 74 million Americans have been denied our day in court. The Democrats’ crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail.
Our play-it-safe judges don’t want to venture into these enormous seas, full of sharks, without precedent. They want to say in the safe spaces of the familiar. Stealing an election for city council is familiar enough to be overturned by law. Stealing a presidential election by wholesale fraud is above the law.
One might think that somehow our laws are written too narrowly to catch the whale of Democrat fraud in the election, but for one thing: the declarations from the bench that it is unthinkable to “upend an election.” Our judges tell us that ruling fraudulent ballots invalid would “disenfranchise” millions of voters. These are political statements. They are pusillanimous statements. They are not legal statements.
Upending an election has no precedent, we are told. But stealing a presidential election on this scale has no precedent, either. The courts are saying that if election crimes are so consequential, they require a politically consequential act to be redressed, then no redress is allowed.
That doesn’t even make sense.
We are told there is no redress because the problem is political.
Yes, stealing an election is political. It is also illegal. It is also unconstitutional.
The judges’ angry rebukes of the Republican plaintiffs are bogus by the very terms they use. If our judges are not willing to “disenfranchise” fraudulent and illegal votes, then they are disenfranchising the entire country.
We are not getting the candidate who won the election. But the Supreme Court tells us our state attorneys have no standing to protect our votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Heh. That’s what THEY think.
Fan, meet s**t.
nt that any of these excuses make any sense whatsoever, but what would these overeducated robed dimwits call Bush v. Gore?
Not that any of these excuses make any sense whatsoever, but what would these overeducated robed dimwits call Bush v. Gore?
> The Democrats’ crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail. <
I actually think that’s the bottom line. The Constitution - and fair play - that’s evidently for suckers. So say the courts.
This is the hill to die on.
It is now an honored institution and we must celebrate its existence........................
Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs
2 September 2016| BBC
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3909842/posts
It is also criminal.
The courts are too cowardly to do their jobs.
Yes, stealing an election is political. It is also illegal. It is also unconstitutional.”
And this one was an act of war by China. But again, that plays into the whole absurdity of too big to fail.
Exactly. Apparently, you just have to cheat SO BIG that if the election results were changed via the court, all of those FAKE voters would be disenfranchised. Nevermind that even the video at State Farm Center showing the exact moment of voter theft, which is corroborated by numerous affidavits, wasn’t enough for the Georgia Supreme Court to find evidence of corruption!
You just can’t make this stuff up any more.
Sounds like the courts are a fraud too.
Mark Steyn said mostly the same thing early on today.
A caller just called in and said that Americans were stupid for electing a mentally impaired Joe Biden. What he said about Biden was correct, but the American people did not elect Biden. It never occurred to Steyn to correct the main premise of the caller. Went right along with it as if Biden had been elected. I turned Steyn off.
The courts fein concern about disenfranchising voters, but have no problem disenfranchising 74M voters by allowing illegal and corrupt votes to be counted and not questioned.
It seems every official in the US court system today fears being Arakancided. The same ploy has worked very well in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela .......... The Clintons knew exactly what they were doing when they went to DC to abjectly corrupt the entire US government by establishing a shadow government in its place.
Overturning a presidential election is NOT without precedence. Election of 1876 - majority of electors (one short of winning) voted for Tilden (D) but the congress had to adjudicate several states’ electors. Returns from three states (Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina) were in dispute, with both sides claiming victory. Together, the states represented a total of 19 electoral votes, which along with one disputed elector from Oregon would be enough to swing the election Hayes’s (R) way.
This resulted in a corrupt deal to remove federal oversight on the formerly Confederate states for the votes for President Hayes. Resulted in the resumption of discriminatory laws in the south.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s politically correct (institutionally indoctrinated?, deep state?) imo argument of “no standing” for Texas challenging the integrity of another state’s electoral votes, Justice Joseph Story had made it clear that there are no limits (my words) to what the states can appeal to the Supreme’s for under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.
§ 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 [!!! emphases 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." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press§ 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 [!!! emphasis added]. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government. 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." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
The misguided Supreme Court cannot wash its hands of probable Democratic vote stealing for a federal election imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
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.