No, this is much less elegant - it's thuggery, intimidation, bullying. It's choosing between what's constitutional and what's convenient. Principle vs. personal gain/safety. To avoid seeing a riot on the seven o'clock news, Roberts will give away the country forever.
This is what I have now come to expect from the Judiciary - expedience. Rather than test the case against the constitution, they will twist the constitution around to align with the desired result.
That's how the death of an unborn baby isn't murder, it's a privacy issue.
It's how Obamacare isn't forcing you to buy something you don't want, it's a TAX.
Now it's about how you can disenfranchise 79 million legal voters to protect the rights of some fictitious illegal voters.
You don't get robbed by "the tide". You don't get violated by "the tide". The tide just IS.
they are thinking survive...
They do ONE thing only...they cash their paychecks
You can't "tell" people. They have to see it for themselves.
They had to see all the damage that the communist Democrats will inflict on society, when they themselves created the crises, then formulate the "solutions".
They had to see our civil systems failing, one after another, in this stolen election. The local political thieves, state legislatures, state courts, federal courts, appeals courts, the Supreme Court, the US Congress and Senate, the various civilian federal agencies.
Trump has taken us through all these civil processes, and we have watched, the whole world has watched, as one after another, our civil systems have failed to save our human civilization.
After a few more civil steps, within the next three or four weeks, then the military system will be employed in the effort to save human civilization. This might be frightening to some, but order could be restored; civilization might be saved, and with minimal loss of life.
If that fails, then the final option will be that the task falls to "We The People" to save human civilization.
This final option would be horrific, the most devastating uncivil war the world has ever seen or imagined. The lesson would not need to be repeated for a very long time, perhaps a thousand years.
The communist Democrats had better hope that the military solution is sufficient.
“The threat of violence is always present in our country.”
Not always. It certainly is credible from the Left, which is why they spent the past year burning and ‘occupying’ our cities, and they showed that our ‘justice system’ was unable to deal with them in any way (at least in some cases).
But our side, we’re just talk. We ‘talk’ about suiting up, putting that AR on our shoulder and marching in to take our country back. Ok, where have we done anything close to that? OK City, maybe Nashville? Oh really.
Anyway, it was an easy call for the kids on the Court, didn’t see a downside in ruling against us - after all when have we EVER seriously pushed back against their crap?
...too bad they’ll have to learn that everyone, and I mean everyone, has a breaking point.
The SCOTUS justices do not live their lives in a bubble. They are out in public the same as the rest of us. They have family members, friends, and relatives just like the rest of us. The truth will eventually come out as to why they tossed the rule of law aside. If they all took their cue from Roberts then we know several things. They are not all equal and that justice is not blind. And that the Constitution can come in second place in some of their decisions.
Recall the oath they took about defending the Constitution and that foreign and domestic. Well they showed their cowardice and are liars. It would be nice to know who recommended these bastards to the court.
Roberts is literally in favor of mob rule. He doesn’t belong on a municipal court let alone SCOTUS.
You are not allowed to be even a local judge without knowing to whom the rules do not apply.
That is why there are confirmation hearings. To ensure the “right” judge gets the seat.
Now play it forward to the SCOTUS. Why would the swamp let ANYONE they can’t control near the most powerful body in the United States? Remember a lot of Obama’s picks are not exactly making libs happy.
It wouldn't be surprising if many FReepers have a better understanding of the intentions of Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) delegates as enumerated in the Constitution than today's so-called conservative, but otherwise institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices do imo. This is because FReepers see the writings of previous generations of respected constitutional experts like Presidents James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, also Justice Joseph Story.
It's been pointed out on FRee Republic that Justice Joseph Story had explained, in his 19th century Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, a time capsule that would enable future generations of Americans to better understand how the clauses of the young Constitution, at least through the Bill of Rights (correction welcome), are best interpreted.
Regarding the recent Texas v. Pennsylvania appeal which the Court wrongly decided not to hear imo, Justice Story had clarified the intentions of the delegates to the Con-Con for the “state v. state clause” in the Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (3.2.1).
"Article III, Section 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; -- 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."
Based on the history of conflicts between original colonies, Story had explained that the states v. state clause of 3.2.1 was made to obligate the Court to unconditionally (my word) give conflicted states a last resort to try to settle their differences to avoid the sword.
§ 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. 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." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
So by refusing to consider Texas’s evidence of alleged electoral vote fraud in another state, the misguided Roberts Court has done the following imo. The Court has wrongly helped to not only increase tension between conflicted states, but has also raised even more concern about a federal government that many patriots, including myself, regard as corrupt.
More specifically, instead of examining evidence to try to help calm down conflicted states as convention delegates had intended for SCOTUS to do to promote domestic tranquility insured in the Preamble to the Constitution, the corrupt Court is wrongly helping to divide the country, supporting the fraudulent election of Biden imo.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [emphasis added], provide for the common defence [British?], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Corrections, insights welcome.
The state legislatures, not the courts, should take action.
The person writing this is basing his opinion on a rumor about what Roberts allegedly said. How is this any different than a liberal story that uses unnamed sources?
We hang petty thieves,but appoint the great ones to public office.
Aesop
Remember DJT is an outsider and he never ran in the circles so he would know about these Justices.
He had to trust his advisors.