Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Supreme Court's failures are putting America on a path to tyranny
American Thinker ^ | 04/21/2021 | Clifford C. Nichols

Posted on 04/21/2021 7:41:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: central_va

Its our turn to give it a shot. Our future and way of life depend on it.


41 posted on 04/21/2021 9:35:03 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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


42 posted on 04/21/2021 9:43:31 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Basket_of_Deplorables

43 posted on 04/21/2021 9:48:01 AM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

Fascinating and prescient quote. Thanks for sharing.

The concentration of vast power. What could go wrong?


44 posted on 04/21/2021 9:48:03 AM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How do the decisions to take or not take a case get made? By the Chief Justice? By a vote?


45 posted on 04/21/2021 10:13:49 AM PDT by TiGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Justice is not blind. Justice is a RAT.


46 posted on 04/21/2021 10:18:00 AM PDT by abbastanza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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

47 posted on 04/21/2021 10:26:11 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (* LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

I called her Amy Commie Barrett. I like yours better.


48 posted on 04/21/2021 12:04:29 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: americas.best.days...

Well said. And can we stop this 2022 crap?


49 posted on 04/21/2021 12:05:06 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

#43: Nice!!!! Soon the bottom one will be illegal to say.


50 posted on 04/21/2021 1:01:50 PM PDT by Basket_of_Deplorables (Convention Of States is our only hope now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

The Roberts court is demonstrating an extreme form of “judicial restraint”. In this case it refuses to uphold the constitutional requirement of a “Republican form of government”.

**************

A seminal decision that may be a harbinger of our demise as a constitutional republic.


51 posted on 04/21/2021 3:04:47 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

It is indeed amazing we have lasted this long since the 17th Amendment.


52 posted on 04/21/2021 3:18:02 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf; falcon99

Yet, despite a thoroughly politicized scotus, and a dead rule of law, I am constantly told that an Article V convention of the states is too dangerous to consider.


53 posted on 04/21/2021 3:21:06 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

And the 19th ...


54 posted on 04/21/2021 3:22:08 PM PDT by bankwalker (groupthink kills ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson