Replies

While there is personal interest among some of the the j(ohn)ustices, there also is the issue of standing. And in all of these cases, many people don't understand what standing means.

When SCOTUS denied remedy based on a state's attempt to overturn another state's election based on "they aren't fixing their own fraudulent mess". The court reminded them that 1st, remedy should start locally and work it's way to SCOTUS. 2nd, the requested remedy has to be within SCOTUS' constitutional authority. 3rd, it must be supported by evidence and facts.

Every case they have filed with SCOTUS has missed enough marks that SCOTUS had to punt.

Now, let's say there is a case filed, SCOTUS hears it and makes a ruling in favor of the petitioner. SCOTUS, would only be able to agree and then toss it back to the state legislators.

Now, in the state of Pennsylvania, if SCOTUS were to do that , the Penn legislators might have a justification for an emergency session.

We can be disappointed that SCOTUS didn't even hear the case, but realistically we would be even more enraged if they heard it and appeared to do nothing. And sending it back to legislators who already have the authority to deal with but have not, will mean that a SCOTUS ruling in our favor, amounted to nothing. A waste of SCOTUS time.

Having piled all of that into this reply, I will add this. I think any unconstitutional act is an offense to the Constitution and the authority of the entire country. Therefore, an attack on the constitution aimed to unseat duly elected officials or undermined/undue the constitutional framework of this nations, is a declaration of foreign sovereignty. Those Individuals are demonstrating their chosen alien status in regards to our entire system. They have declared themselves an enemy of ours. Even if a civilian remedy miraculously resolves this, those self declared enemies must be taken into military custody and given the tribunal they work so hard to avoid/attain.