Posted on 12/10/2020 4:40:28 AM PST by MtnClimber
Do you think the Democrats regret talking about packing the Supreme Court?
A lot of people were shocked when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the lawsuit by the State of Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania for allegedly exploiting "the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election." According to media reports, Louisiana and Alabama A.G.s, and possibly six other states, have expressed interest in joining Texas in the lawsuit.
Many legal scholars dismiss the chances of success for the lawsuit, and even sympathetic observers such as John Hinderaker of Powerline term the suit a "Hail Mary" move, even though it is "plausible from a legal standpoint," because "the likelihood that the Supreme Court will seriously entertain the idea of overturning the apparent result of the election is far-fetched."
I am not a lawyer and will leave to others far more qualified than I to debate the intricacies of constitutional jurisprudence. My concern here is the other factors that may well weigh on the minds of the nine justices of the Supreme Court.
It's been more than a century since the words "[t]he Supreme Court follows the election returns" entered the nation's consciousness, meaning that it is naïve to believe that the Court acts solely on the basis of legal reasoning and precedent. I am looking at the case from the standpoint of the Supreme Court as a political body, one that cloaks its actions in the veneer of legal reasoning but that ultimately is well aware of the political background and consequences of its actions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“They got a eat, we control the wheat”.
I agree with you. It wouldn’t take 10% the legal/ethical gymnastics for them to rule for Texas that it did for them to rule for Obamacare.
“Judicial notice” requires that some fact or situation is known because of evidence proving such in a judicial setting. Read “US v Miller” (1939) to see the flagrant ignoring of obvious facts because they are “not within judicial notice.”
“Within notice” is another matter, but that cannot and will not even be mentioned as a factor in any decision.
Spot on. And well said.
I read your article at ammoland and I hope that you're right. There are many factors that will affect the conservative justices, beyond those they're being asked to to consider.
It looks like you made a typo in the beginning. The previous election was in 2016, not 2015.
Btt
☑️
Thanks, you are correct, of course!
“ It would take some serious balls to do that”
————
“A republic, if you can keep it”
Those who intend to preserve our Republic need to have bigger balls than those who have cheated across the nation to destroy that Republic; that or we will face a choice between tyranny or a 2nd Civil War. Trump has them, but he obviously hopes that the Supremes will actually do their job and not punt like craven cowards, so that he doesn’t need to do anything drastic.
No matter what, we are so divided that some violence is going to occur either way - too much is at stake for that not to happen. But we have a choice - or, rather, SCOTUS does - between Antifa type violence that can be put down relatively quickly and easy, vs. entire regions of the country deciding to ignore laws and EOs.
How does the American Thinker not know SCOTUS hasn’t agree to hear the case?
It’s speculation. So the words “I know” actually are what shouldn’t be used.
I “think” is appropriate when speculating the one of only 2 or 3 possible outcomes.
I get wary when people say things for a fact that there’s no way they can possibly know. Like “Donald Trump Trump be inaugurated. “ he very well may not. Because evil is soooo pervasive they would rather die than see him in again. They’re pulling out all the stops behind the scenes. Bet on it.
In the Soviet Union, the Communists were perfectly willing to starve millions of people to feed those in the cities under their control.
To be effective, the first thing they need to do is cut off all communication between patriots.
The Youtube ban is a step along the way.
the suit a “Hail Mary” move, even though it is “plausible from a legal standpoint,” because “the likelihood that the Supreme Court will seriously entertain the idea of overturning the apparent result of the election is far-fetched.”
It won't be mentioned. It will not need to be mentioned in any court document.
I don't believe five of the justices are so willfully self deceptive as to ignore the current state of the country.
“ It would take some serious balls to do that”
————
“A republic, if you can keep it”
Those who intend to preserve our Republic need to have bigger balls than those who have cheated across the nation to destroy that Republic; that or we will face a choice between tyranny or a 2nd Civil War. Trump has them, but he obviously hopes that the Supremes will actually do their job and not punt like craven cowards, so that he doesn’t need to do anything drastic.
No matter what, we are so divided that some violence is going to occur either way - too much is at stake for that not to happen. But we have a choice - or, rather, SCOTUS does - between Antifa type violence that can be put down relatively quickly and easy, vs. entire regions of the country deciding to ignore laws and EOs.
Sorry for the double post, phone mishap.
Don’t get me wrong, but I hope people do realize the Supreme Court could rule, theses states violated their laws and the constitution, and still not invalidate the vote.
It makes no logical sense, but they can indeed do that.
There is no doubt these states violated the constitution, and law.. treated ballots differently in different places etc etc.. that doesn’t guarantee however the court will order the legislature to pick the electors even if thr vote is declared tainted.
I hope the court will do what’s right and not let an unconstitutional election stand, but that would require at least 5 judges to show more balls than anyone else in major office this country has shown to date.
Thank you for your wise words.
I am very glad I am as OLD as I am, and know that there is a Kingdom NOT “of this world”!
Yet, for the sake of my kids and theirs, and our FREE REPUBLIC, I do pray that the DEMONrats do not succeed in their campaign to STEAL this election!
Merry Christmas to you FRiend.
Good to know we have some patriots here on FR - some of the folks here make one wonder.
Don’t get me wrong, but I hope people do realize the Supreme Court could rule, theses states violated their laws and the constitution, and still not invalidate the vote.
It makes no logical sense, but they can indeed do that.
___
Yes, I can hear the Comey voice from SCOTUS, “although these states violated their laws, we see no intent to do so, and therefore no reasonable jurist would suggest the outcome be changed”.
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.