Posted on 11/06/2020 6:42:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As of this writing, it's a good bet that the election mess will end up in the Supreme Court for resolution. If so, one of two scenarios is likely to unfold. One is the that the five conservative justices will have the backbone to stand firm for the rule of law. These justices are Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is a proven equivocator, could vote either way, but he would not affect the final decision.
The other less desirable scenario is that at least one of the five conservative justices gets weak and surrenders to the pressure of the moment. That pressure can be called "practicality." Forming the practicality mindset would be the riots, looting, and violence that occurred this summer and are ongoing to some extent. And indeed, many leftist groups are promising turmoil if Donald Trump wins a second term. Plus the media will make it clear that they intend to mau-mau justices who deviate from the liberal script.
In such an environment, a weak justice might reason like this: "If I vote to uphold the election laws, the Biden forces will go on a rampage. On the other hand, if the decision goes against Trump, his supporters will huff and puff, but despite media propaganda, I know they are not as violence-prone as their opposition. So I'll be practical. I'll twist my reading of the law to make it serve the cause of social peace." And should one conservative justice weaken, Roberts will be sure to follow like a puppy looking for petting.
I was being overly generous when I called this "practicality." Actually, it is bowing to intimidation. And there is precedent when conservatives — real conservatives, not Roberts-like ones — capitulated to intimidation.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Big woogies.
Supremes can’t fix this.
That doesn’t give me any confidence. I see most of them as unconstitutional idiots. And they’re not that stupid so they must be corrupt.
Trump has to start accumulating real evidence documenting to the greatest extent possible the fraud. He has to then seek recounts with foressic analysis ot the ballots by court appointed regulators. He must never concede and give the criminal Biden legitimacy.
Could there be an executive order?
Prolly right and the criminals who planned this know that once a vote is counted, it’s golden which is one reason they just plowed ahead as fast as possible.
In order for it to go to the Supreme Court you first have to have a strong case for the state in question violating its own election laws. So far that hasn’t happened. I don’t see it going to the Supremes.
If this fraud is not dealt with, there will be no more elections other than ones that are sham. We are no longer citizens. Rather we have been turned into tax slaves for the ruling class.
If 5-4 it will be 6-3 so Roberts can determine who writes the opinion, including himself.
The states involved and the media completely control this narrative, as planned!
True. Once tainted ballots are mixed in with the legitimate ballots, how do you “unscramble” the egg, so to speak?
The only way votes could be reversed, would be if a court decided to throw out the entire election, and order a new election to be held. I don’t know if that has ever happened in history, or if it’s even legally possible.
Then there is the issue of the electoral votes, which nobody is talking about yet. State legislatures have the power to appoint electors. The Republican legislature of PA, for example, could decide that the election was tainted and appoint electors themselves, theoretically. Whether any state legislature would actually do that is unknown.
“...Rather we have been turned into tax slaves for the ruling class....”
Which is EXACTLY what they’ve been after...for years.
We old timers have a name for it: COMMUNISM.
Look, this is just ramping up the process that began in Florida in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election. The objective is to use process changes and technology in voting to create DELIBERATE AMBIGUITY about the results to enable increasingly inventive forms of cheating.
The first time I remember going with my Dad when he voted was 1960, New York had these wonderful mechanical voting machines where you changed the state of a mechanical lever to vote, and opened the curtain with a big red lever which locked your votes and reset the levers. These machines were invented to limit paper ballot cheating, but like paper ballots, they would yield a tally by the early morning hours of the following day, and that was that. Yes, you could recount the ballots or re-tally the machines, but the results existed in physical form in the possession of authorities (i.e., the results were “analog”). In essence, “Election Day” was when everything happened and by Wednesday morning it was over.
What has been happening since 2000 (and maybe before) is the use of media, and technology, to create a condition where nobody knows what the result truly is - nobody knows how many votes were cast, nobody knows which votes count and which ones don’t, and the final tally can change for days and even weeks (or until the Democrat wins). Most of the results, and now a lot of the votes themselves, are no longer analog but digital, and exist only as an ordered set of electrons, subject to change in many ways by many people.
This has created a fundamental change in public perception, and you can see it even here on FR. People go on and on about whether or not a winner has been “declared”, usually by media people who have no access to the real data. As electronic voting, and now even apps meant to run on handhelds, define reality, we may be approaching or already be at the point where most people are accepting of the proposition that “nobody knows who won, we have to rerun the program, we have to call in the experts, it was Russian bots, it was Craig Livingstone, etc., etc.).
This problem is of course compounded by early voting, absentee voting, overseas voting, etc.
On election night in 1932, everybody knew that FDR had won a big victory - that in a country with no electronic media, no computers, and half paralyzed by depression. On election night in 1952, there were more votes for Eisenhower than Stevenson, and everybody knew THAT.
Eight years ago (a century in digital years), Hugh Hewitt wrote a book called, “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat”. As long as people believe that only digital wizards can actually determine the result, that may no longer be true.
If we could conduct and tally elections in 1932 and 1952, we should be able to do it now - except that would upset our masters, who have worked so hard to create the status quo. They certainly won’t give it up without a fight.
Postal inspectors need to secure evidence now.
Don’t let envelope get tossed, ballots or envelopes get placed out of order or voting machines reset.
Call in forensic experts and voting machine technology gurus.
One way for the Supreme Court to rule is to order a new election in those contested states. As other posters have noted, new elections have been ordered in the past. So there is precedence. I believe that is most likely what the Supreme Court will do.
Fess up now $1000 fine.
One month secure federal housing for each day of delay.
HOW MANY mail-in ballots did a specific state mail out to voters? SURELY that is a documented number.
Now...HOW MANY votes in that state were cast with a mail-in ballot? If that number exceeds by hundreds of thousands the number that were sent out, what more proof do you need?
Traitor Roberts allowed this theft to take place, and now it's going to be a monumental effort to unscramble this egg of corruption and fraud. I don't think any of the republicans except the president have the spine for the fight this is going to take.
Offer rewards and prizes for unearthing cheating.
This is what we need.
I seriously doubt any state would override the vote count unless they had such overwhelming proof of fraud.
Furthermore, I dont think many republicans even WANT Trump around so even if they saw cheating, they’re not going to do anything.
I mean, see what Mitch had to say this morning...very nonchalant about it all....Mitch does not support Trump.
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.