Viva Frei and Barnes dissect the dismissal of the Texas suit. Barnes notes, correctly, that standing is a device made up by the Court in 1922 and used by the Court haphazardly since then whenever the Court simply does not want to address an issue.
Where We Are
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Rule of law died a long time ago, If other states don’t have standing to contest the election fraud that results in a federal office held by someone who has power over them, then that means they are not bound by that election either. Jus like if a court rules you lack standing to complain about the breach of contract because you were not a party to it, by necessity that means you are also not bound by that contract.
I have no idea what to make of this:
https://newsla.localad.com/2020/12/14/republican-electors-in-georgia-and-pennsylvania-cast-procedural-votes-for-president-and-vice-president-to-preserve-trump-camp-legal-challenges/
A useless gesture.
Add in Nevada and Arizona to the gesturing, then.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/pennsylvania-georgia-nevada-and-arizona-republican-electors-cast-votes-for-trump_3618147.html
Without them being certified to do by the legislature of the state it doesn’t matter. Now if prior to the electoral votes being counted an alternate slate of electors was to receive certification by the legislature than it would matter if the number of undisputed electoral votes fell below 370, but I think that is highly unlikely to happen at this point.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s more failure theater. If the legislatures of those states really wanted to take action, they’d take it.
The destruction of the American Republic has now been confirmed by the highest court in the land. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the citizens of every state a republican form of government. If a state refuses to ensure the integrity of its election proces, that state no longer has a republican form of government. The justices of the Supreme Court know this. The justices also know of all the irregularities and vote fraud, well documented, that occurred in at least five states. They know citizens in those states no longer have a republican form of government.
Form (pretense) does not prevail over substance. By refusing to address these irregularities, the justices have violated their duty and responsibilities.
Historians will date the end of the American Republic to this decision of the Supreme Court.
You cannot have a constitutional republic without preserving and protecting the integrity of the election process.
The national division the Supreme Court instigated with their Roe v. Wade decision has now been completed by their complicity in refusing to protect and preserve the integrity of the voting process.
Historians will date the end of the American Republic to this decision of the Supreme Court.
Such predictions have been made on a regular basis throughout American history since 1776. No, this is not the end of the American Republic. If anything I think the Democrat Party in its current Leftist incarnation may be reaching its sell by date. Except for the Presidency the election results have been dismal for them, and an election you win by cheating, especially when your candidate is far gone in dementia is a sign of weakness not strenth.
America is no longer a Republic. It is now a plutocracy.
How will the integrity of voting be preserved if the Supreme Court refuses to protect it?
Any state can cheat whenever it wants and the justices will condone it.
America is no longer a Republic. It is now a plutocracy.
Once again that has been said throughout American history, especially during the gilded age of the late nineteenth century.
“How will the integrity of voting be preserved if the Supreme Court refuses to protect it?”
Through winning elections and passing laws. Those looking for the Supreme Court to do anything much about this were always engaging in a longshot. Their involvement in American presidential elections are precisely two: 1876 and 2000. Cheating in American elections is nothing new, although the scale of the cheating in the last election is probably unprecedented. A useful step would be to capture the governorships in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, something the Republicans have done in the recent past, and then pass new laws to safeguard the ballot. Learn from this experience and move on.
One of us will be right. I agree your optimism has the odds in its favor. But your optimism is based on both 230 years of history and the belief that the Supreme Court’s refusal to protect election integrity; and, that the tech giants’ decisions to control political information, will have no substantive impact on the integrity of future elections.
The results of the Georgia runoffs will add to the odds favoring the predictions of one of us.
By the way, the demise of the American Republic is inevitable. No earthly power can endure the test of tme.
I should have been more clear. The Court’s refusal to protect the election process will be the begining of the end of the American Republic. The culmination of its ending remains to be determined. Also, the end of the American Republic is not the same as the end of the U.S.A.
My thanks to you for not engaging in ad hominem. As you know that is kind of rare on the internet.
By the way, the demise of the American Republic is inevitable. No earthly power can endure the test of tme.
So history says. We of course have no idea how long history will last.