Posted on 03/17/2021 9:16:05 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
Former President Donald Trump slammed the Supreme Court for refusing to hear a series of challenges to the 2020 presidential election results, saying the high court "should be ashamed of itself."
Trump blamed mail-in voting changes, that he contends were likely illegal, for his loss to President Joe Biden, during a Tuesday interview on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo.
"The Democrats used COVID to do things they can’t believe they got away with, that they didn’t get their legislatures to approve, and our courts and the Supreme Court didn’t have the courage to overturn elections that should have been overturned," said Trump, who nominated 3 of the court's 9 justices. "Because you’re talking about decisive amounts, hundreds of thousands and even millions of votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
So true.
A shame they stole his Twitter availability.
Maybe! But they’re more afraid of the people who have the video tape!
I am sorry, I cant agree with calling them “Scrotum”. That would imply that they had b@lls.
I wish he would have added : “Two of my biggest mistakes as president were nominating Kavanaugh and Barret to the SCOTUS”.
Malta Roberts is their leader.
I don’t believe for a moment they are scared of antifa or blm. This was purely political. It’s like saying that a grown man is afraid of a kid who swearing and marching around. And the grown man has friends with guns. It’s ridiculous. If this really was the case, it’s like a judge saying, “I’m going to let crime happen because the criminals might get hurt if I start using the police.” RIDICULUS!
Everybody is corrupt or compromised and that is why they work in Washington. Point to an honest politician? Who? These people are steeped in corruption and that is how they get on Mitch’s short list. They are controlled entities taking their orders. Roberts could even be sworn in without stumbling over the words... There will be a special place in HELL for these people where the sword of justice cuts out their liver every day.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.Republicans are themselves lawless.
— Communist goal #15
Bunch of COWARDS!!
Not if it’s empty.
They are deep state on the take.
The constitution gives the states the sole power and authority to elect a President.
The states were happy with their electoral college votes, and no state legislature disagreed with any vote cast.
There was nothing for the USSC to do without a judicial power grab of epic proportions.
In is my opinion history will not be kind to Chief Justice Roberts.
The Supreme Court wrongly denied Texas and the Trump Campaign due process when the Court decided not to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania in December imo.
More specifically, not only did the Supremes not invent the constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse not to hear cases until Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, but Justice Joseph Story had previously clarified the Constitution’s state v. state clause.
"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; (See Note 10)-- 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 experience of the colonies, Story had written that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made the state versus state clause to obligate (my word) the Supremes to consider evidence between conflicted states as a last effort try to avoid the worst possible outcome of such a conflict.
From the writings of Justice Joseph Story…
§ 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.
For emphasis, from paragraph 1675 above…
"The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
Also, consider that the Civil War Union States ignored any electoral votes of the Confederate States for the presidential election of 1864.
"Because eleven Southern states had declared secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, only twenty-five states participated in the election." —Presidential election of 1864.
Finally, as another freeper has suggested, consider that Trump as private citizen actually has more flexibility to deal with many of the nation's problems, including election fraud by desperate Democrats, than if he had remained in Oval Office.
In other words, if he needs the Oval Office he may just go back there.
Corrections, insights welcome.
I suppose we'll never know if that story is true...but IMO it's *very* believable and,if true,it's understandable that the justices *were* afraid.
The Supreme Court also invalidated themselves by not throwing out the election of Kamala Harris as Vice President since she's ineligible to serve since she's not a natural born citizen. Period.
President Trump is the Last Legitimate President of the United States and Justice Amy Barrett is the Last Legitimate Supreme Court Justice.
Cleon Skousen:
Did anyone present SCOTUS with the unlawful act of presenting a candidate who is not a Natural Born Citizen as a reason to declare the Presidential Election as UNLAWFUL?
Anyone?
SCROTUMS*
Supreme Court, Rulers of these United Metrosexual States.
...ok, granted, by punting, they’re not so much rulers anymore.
But the new acronym is too amusing to let go of right away.
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.