The Supreme Court's failures are putting America on a path to tyranny

Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation's demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture's destruction has been rendered incurable. Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action...but did not seem to.

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others. Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.

Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a New York prosecutor from obtaining former president Trump's tax returns. The practical effect was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President Trump's ouster from office permanent.

Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone evidence the fact that the agenda of the justices has become politically driven.

This was all foreseen when the states were essentially removed as constitutional actors in their own right and the defense of our rights was entrusted entirely to 9 federal government lawyers.

“I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” Robert E. Lee in a letter to Lord Acton

I'm lifting a part of a post of mine from another thread:

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Article III of the Constitution:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Since a state such as Pennsylvania was a party in their suit over the illegal alteration of laws passed by their legislature, SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction. Their actions would be limited to the state, not the Executive branch of the federal government. SCOTUS should have ordered the state to recount the votes using the rules in place as passed by the legislature, and disregard any rules put in place by election officials.
In the case brought by the Attorneys General of several other states arguing that the few states that illegally altered their election laws tainted the outcomes for all the states, the same would apply: SCOTUS should rule that all of the states must count their votes using the rules put in place before the election by the respective state legislatures. They can't rule that the suing states are correct and the other candidate should be installed into office. A ruling such as that would bypass the Electoral College, which is also a representative body guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV which you cited in post #80.
Third, the time for SCOTUS to act was before the safe-harbor date for the Electoral College. SCOTUS declined to hear the challenges before the election, and again after the election. If we are to discuss original jurisdiction, along with that comes a discussion on whether SCOTUS can be compelled to hear a case.
What's the point of original jurisdiction if SCOTUS can reject it? Lower courts can't reject hearing a case brought to it by prosecutors, so why can SCOTUS? Obviously, such a compulsion from the Executive (Trump) would have been "yes," while Congress would have been split. Would the states have a say in it? Should a majority of state legislatures not parties to the case be allowed to pass resolutions requiring SCOTUS to take an original jurisdiction case? Should SCOTUS be unilaterally required to hear an original jurisdiction case? That would take an amendment to the Constitution to make happen, and there would have to be some threshold against nuisance cases (yes, even from states).

-PJ

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.