After SCOTUS's knife in the back, what Trump must do now

[mystery-ak]

December 12, 2020
After SCOTUS's knife in the back, what Trump must do now
By C. Edmund Wright

Today, Donald Trump is the most dangerous man on the planet.  At this moment, America needs him more than he needs America.  Trump could shoot the biggest middle finger ever to the entire nation, retire to a private island, or his penthouse, or his Florida compound, overcook his prime steaks and douse them with ketchup, and really — who could blame him?  It's not as if he'll outlive his money.  He doesn't need us.  He doesn't need anyone.  He has "F-U" money, and unlike others with big money — such as Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and everyone ever named Kennedy — he doesn't have this sick psychotic need to rule over others for 60 years of government life.  Trump is the freest man on the planet tonight.  He needs nothing.

We, however, are no longer the freest people on the planet.  We need some help.

Our feckless Supreme Court has chosen guaranteed cocktail party invitations with the beautiful people in the swamp over the Constitutional Republic — and favored phony pieces of mailed ballots and theoretical Dominion algorithms over flesh-and-blood voters.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/after_scotuss_knife_in_the_back_what_trump_must_do_now.html

[Bigun]

Our feckless Supreme Court has chosen guaranteed cocktail party invitations with the beautiful people in the swamp over the Constitutional Republic — and favored phony pieces of mailed ballots and theoretical Dominion algorithms over flesh-and-blood voters.

Truer words have never been spoken!

This whole 20th century, progressive era, court contrived, idea of "Standing" is an affront to our Constitution and system of Justice IMHO!  Does anyone remember how questions about the Constitutional Eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama were universally dealt with?  Why is no one even bothering to ask those same questions about Kamala Harris?

Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine?
An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006*

[Right_in_Virginia]

Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law

FYI: the entire doctrine of "standing" was invented by courts this last century as a way to play preferential Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of cases they don't want responsibility for.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfbd/14305d0a07a25975a0960c3f297eddd42367.pdf


10:46 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337604758576615425

[goatprairie]

So everybody here would love to have certain states be able to interfere with the election processes of other states?
Would you like some other state to tell your state how to run their elections? I think not.

[LilLamb]

So everybody here would love to have certain states be able to interfere with the election processes of other states?
Would you like some other state to tell your state how to run their elections? I think not.

A federal election must be run according to the Constitution. The Constitution gives the power to make laws in a federal election to the state legislature only. If a governor or judge makes election laws, they are interfering with the entire federal election. We don’t seek to interfere with the laws the legislature was Constitutionally allowed to make and the process resulting from those laws. We seek to stop outside un-constitutional interference in a federal election.

[Smokin Joe]

So everybody here would love to have certain states be able to interfere with the election processes of other states?
Would you like some other state to tell your state how to run their elections? I think not.

The United States Constitution says that States shall have their election laws made by the legislatures of the respective and several States. Their legislatures did not make the laws under which the election was conducted. The election laws were a polyglot of edicts by bureaucrats and judges, neither of which is empowered by the Constitution of the US to do so. The rules there were changed illegally, in Democrat dominated States for the purpose of committing fraud.

Every false ballot cast there, having an effect in a Federal Election for Nationwide office has an effect on the value of every other legal and legitimate ballot cast, reducing that value.

Had they followed the Constitution and kept their legislatures' rules in place and conducted matters in a way that fraud would have been minimized, the result would be legally acceptable.

[Bigun]

A federal election must be run according to the Constitution. The Constitution gives the power to make laws in a federal election to the state legislature only. If a governor or judge makes election laws, they are interfering with the entire federal election. We don’t seek to interfere with the laws the legislature was Constitutionally allowed to make and the process resulting from those laws. We seek to stop outside un-constitutional interference in a federal election.

 

[Bigun]

The United States Constitution says that States shall have their election laws made by the legislatures of the respective and several States. Their legislatures did not make the laws under which the election was conducted. The election laws were a polyglot of edicts by bureaucrats and judges, neither of which is empowered by the Constitution of the US to do so. The rules there were changed illegally, in Democrat dominated States for the purpose of committing fraud.

Every false ballot cast there, having an effect in a Federal Election for Nationwide office has an effect on the value of every other legal and legitimate ballot cast, reducing that value.

Had they followed the Constitution and kept their legislatures' rules in place and conducted matters in a way that fraud would have been minimized, the result would be legally acceptable.

 

[goatprairie]

A federal election must be run according to the Constitution. The Constitution gives the power to make laws in a federal election to the state legislature only. If a governor or judge makes election laws, they are interfering with the entire federal election. We don’t seek to interfere with the laws the legislature was Constitutionally allowed to make and the process resulting from those laws. We seek to stop outside un-constitutional interference in a federal election.

What Pennsylvania did has not been established as unconstitutional. If residents of Pennsylvania thought it was, it is up to them to try to effect change...not some other state like Texas.
All you people barking about "unconstitutionally" would be claiming otherwise if the shoe were on the other foot, just admit it.
BTW, I've read that Texas has done things similar to Pennsylvania making them hypocrites.
But that's the business of Texas.
Team Trump is grasping for straws.

[goatprairie]

The United States Constitution says that States shall have their election laws made by the legislatures of the respective and several States. Their legislatures did not make the laws under which the election was conducted. The election laws were a polyglot of edicts by bureaucrats and judges, neither of which is empowered by the Constitution of the US to do so. The rules there were changed illegally, in Democrat dominated States for the purpose of committing fraud.

Every false ballot cast there, having an effect in a Federal Election for Nationwide office has an effect on the value of every other legal and legitimate ballot cast, reducing that value.

Had they followed the Constitution and kept their legislatures' rules in place and conducted matters in a way that fraud would have been minimized, the result would be legally acceptable.

It's not the business of Texas to tell Pennsylvania, or any other state, how to run their elections.
If you believe in federalism, and I'm sure you do, if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be singing a different tune. I doubt very much you'd like some other state to tell your state of N. Dakota how to run their elections.

[Bigun]

It's not the business of Texas to tell Pennsylvania, or any other state, how to run their elections.
If you believe in federalism, and I'm sure you do, if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be singing a different tune. I doubt very much you'd like some other state to tell your state of N. Dakota how to run their elections.

The United States Constitution tells Pennsylvania WHO gets to say how their elections are run and it isn't the governor or the State Supreme court!  And when the Constitution is violated EVERY state has a right and a duty to try and correct that violation!

[Cyber Liberty]

What Pennsylvania did has not been established as unconstitutional.

You are correct.  The SCOTUS saw to it that it won't be "established" by throwing the suit out without even considering its merits.

Yes, you are correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

[Bigun]

You are correct.  The SCOTUS saw to it that it won't be "established" by throwing the suit out without even considering its merits.

Yes, you are correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

And, according to Justices Alito and Thomas, with whom I agree, SCOTUS has no authority to refuse to hear a case when they are the court of original jurisdiction!

[Cyber Liberty]

And, according to Justices Alito and Thomas, with whom I agree, SCOTUS has no authority to refuse to hear a case when they are the court of original jurisdiction!

Absolutely correct.  Virtually all the other cases that come before the SCOTUS come with decisions already made by lower courts, and their job is to either agree, disagree, or they can chose to not hear it.  When SCOTUS is the Original Jurisdiction, there are no previous decisions.  To refuse to hear it is a breathtaking lapse of duty.

[libertybele]

Even IF (and that's a might big IF) we hold onto the Senate, that gives the GOP a very thin majority with Kamal getting to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie.  I don't hold much hope.

The SCOTUS failed this country, as did our AG, DOJ, RNC, GOPe and certainly the clowns on the other side of the aisle.

There continues to be one set of rules for the marxist/globalist/liberals and one set of rules for the GOP.  That situation is getting worse instead of better.

The MSM, including FOX only reports their biased agenda. 

President Trump has been able to expose all of this, yet the corruption runs so deep that one of the most corrupt individuals will soon be seated as president.

Yes, America needs Donald Trump.  IMHO perhaps his ego will lead him to continue the fight, but the man deserves better and deserves to enjoy the rest of his life.  Unfortunately, I see "them" going after him after he leaves office.

[Bigun]

Absolutely correct.  Virtually all the other cases that come before the SCOTUS come with decisions already made by lower courts, and their job is to either agree, disagree, or they can chose to not hear it.  When SCOTUS is the Original Jurisdiction, there are no previous decisions.  To refuse to hear it is a breathtaking lapse of duty.

Who will hold them accountable for their dereliction of duty?

[Cyber Liberty]

Who will hold them accountable for their dereliction of duty?

Nobody.  We've discovered a flaw in the Founders' plan.

[goatprairie]

The United States Constitution tells Pennsylvania WHO gets to say how their elections are run and it isn't the governor or the State Supreme court!  And when the Constitution is violated EVERY state has a right and a duty to try and correct that violation!

"The United States Constitution tells Pennsylvania WHO gets to say how their elections are run"

 How electors are chose in states are up to the states themselves. Spin the bottle, throw darts, roulette wheel, etc. The Pennsylvania state legislature is controlled by the Republicans. They didn't say anything about the process before the election. That was the time to speak up and do something. Too late now.

[libertybele]

Nobody.  We've discovered a flaw in the Founders' plan.

Exactly.  The marxist/globalist/leftists have gone through the Constitution and have taken full advantage of any flaw that can be construed to their benefit and have "aligned" the courts to go along with them.  Our AG's for the past several administrations have also have sided with them.

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly.  The marxist/globalist/leftists have gone through the Constitution and have taken full advantage of any flaw that can be construed to their benefit and have "aligned" the courts to go along with them.  Our AG's for the past several administrations have also have sided with them.

The flaw is, there is such a thing as "shiftless" SCOTUS Justices who are terrified of sticking their necks out and actually doing their jobs.  The founders expected the Branches to keep each other in check, but it never occurred to them that politicians (Judges are now glorified politicians) can be perfectly happy fobbing off their responsibilities on the other Branches.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What Pennsylvania did has not been established as unconstitutional. If residents of Pennsylvania thought it was, it is up to them to try to effect change...not some other state like Texas.
All you people barking about "unconstitutionally" would be claiming otherwise if the shoe were on the other foot, just admit it.
BTW, I've read that Texas has done things similar to Pennsylvania making them hypocrites.
But that's the business of Texas.
Team Trump is grasping for straws.

 

[Smokin Joe]

What Pennsylvania did has not been established as unconstitutional. If residents of Pennsylvania thought it was, it is up to them to try to effect change...not some other state like Texas.
All you people barking about "unconstitutionally" would be claiming otherwise if the shoe were on the other foot, just admit it.
BTW, I've read that Texas has done things similar to Pennsylvania making them hypocrites.
But that's the business of Texas.
Team Trump is grasping for straws.

But the shoe isn't on the other foot, seemingly ever. Virtually every "error" has been in Biden's favor. THe "clerical errors" that led to votes being taken away from Trump and given to Biden were a one way street. The jumps of tens of thousands of ballots were in Biden's favor, and cumulatively, these add up to be enough to steal an election, but it seems, only in specific and strategic areas (in "battleground states") where the rules were changed, and where a few tens of thousands of votes (more) would be enough to sway the critical electoral votes.
 
If those improprieties had occurred in Trump's favor, the Democrats would be burning cities and raising hell on every channel instead of pimping some nonsense about "The Office of the President Elect" even before the Electoral College meets.

[Smokin Joe]

You are correct.  The SCOTUS saw to it that it won't be "established" by throwing the suit out without even considering its merits.

Yes, you are correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

Precisely.

[Smokin Joe]

"The United States Constitution tells Pennsylvania WHO gets to say how their elections are run"

 How electors are chose in states are up to the states themselves. Spin the bottle, throw darts, roulette wheel, etc. The Pennsylvania state legislature is controlled by the Republicans. They didn't say anything about the process before the election. That was the time to speak up and do something. Too late now.

They would have been denied standing because no harm had been incurred.
 
They had to wait to incur harm before they would have a valid complaint.

You can't sue because someone might run into your car. You have to wait for it.

[rustynail]

 After SCOTUS's knife in the back, what Trump must do

Start a Nuclear War.