What are the new SCOTUS justices thinking?

[mystery-ak]

December 25, 2020
What are the new SCOTUS justices thinking?
By Marlo Horne

There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

—Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3

The new SCOTUS justices have to be aware that our United States Constitution is under attack, not just from anarchists, but also from numerous politicians and the media.  Freedom of speech, the right to own a weapon, and property rights are all being attacked, and to a fundamental degree, our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being increasingly denied.  There has been extreme violence in several of our major cities, which does not meet even token resistance from their governors and mayors.  Lives have already been lost.  In addition, the rioting has destroyed numerous businesses, thereby destroying property and denying liberty and pursuit of happiness for those business-owners.

There is a report that the chief justice, John Roberts, is afraid of inciting riots and said he would tell the other justices how to vote.  Considering John Roberts's actions in the past that appeared to be politically motivated, he may well be concerned that a SCOTUS ruling could incite violence.  His determination to uphold the Constitution seems to be weak at best.  However, the older conservative justices, Alito and Thomas, proved that they were willing to hear cases about the fraudulent election when they dissented in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. case.  So why wouldn't the new SCOTUS justices follow the lead of Alito and Thomas, especially when the issue of free and fair elections is so vital to our Constitution?

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/what_are_the_new_scotus_justices_thinking.html

[sneakypete]

They are thinking "I want history to remember me fondly as a SC Justice that wuz luved by da peep-pulls!"

The instant the SOB's get seated,they start to think of themselves as historic figures,instead of judges.

[Cyber Liberty]

"I've already had my home laid to siege by protestors, and if I decide the wrong way, they'll burn it down!"

[jafo2010]

What they should be thinking is that if Americans say enough and rise up with a revolution, they will not be spared the rope for their actions or should I say inactions to defend the Constitution, and more importantly do their damn jobs at a time when anarchists want to destroy everything.  Funded by a billionaire, they might just get their wish.

And if it isn't the anarchists attempting to destroy this nation, it is the communists that have infiltrated every branch of government.  I doubt there is anything we are doing in this nation that the ChiComs don't know about within seconds of it happening here.

If we have a revolution now, it will not be led by folks comparable to the last revolution.  Back then they were Christians one and all.  Today, the non Christians appear to be controlling everything. 

[Smokin Joe]

They are thinking "I want history to remember me fondly as a SC Justice that wuz luved by da peep-pulls!"

The instant the SOB's get seated,they start to think of themselves as historic figures,instead of judges.

But they ARE historic figures. Only two of the nine even stood lightly against the EPIC cowardice the Court exhibited in failing to hear the Texas Case.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Supreme Court has declared itself irrelevant when it passed on a fundamental dispute between an overwhelming majority of the states (20 against 20).

The breadth of its decision is staggering.

To rule to not even look at facts of this case yet take up tasks such as self identity gender issues or baking cakes means it has relegated itself to uselessness.

Might as well make another Seinfeld episode, for how important their work is.

[sneakypete]

The Supreme Court has declared itself irrelevant when it passed on a fundamental dispute between an overwhelming majority of the states (20 against 20).

The breadth of its decision is staggering.

To rule to not even look at facts of this case yet take up tasks such as self identity gender issues or baking cakes means it has relegated itself to uselessness.

Might as well make another Seinfeld episode, for how important their work is.

@IsailedawayfromFR

I would really love to be able to argue with any of that,but I can't.

[Smokin Joe]

The Supreme Court has declared itself irrelevant when it passed on a fundamental dispute between an overwhelming majority of the states (20 against 20).

The breadth of its decision is staggering.

To rule to not even look at facts of this case yet take up tasks such as self identity gender issues or baking cakes means it has relegated itself to uselessness.

Might as well make another Seinfeld episode, for how important their work is.

QFT

[jafo2010]

For not one of Trump's appointed justices to take a stand to hear the case, I say there is something afoot here beyond perhaps our comprehension.  There are powerful forces working very hard to destroy this republic.  The big question is who is really pulling the strings?

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Supreme Court has declared itself irrelevant when it passed on a fundamental dispute between an overwhelming majority of the states (20 against 20).

The breadth of its decision is staggering.

I agree the breath of its decision is staggering @IsailedawayfromFR but disagree it has declared itself irrelevant.  The Supreme Court has declared itself, in no uncertain terms, now proudly political and exists to serve the democrat machine rather than the US Constitution.

We fight to the death on Jan 6 or we go quietly into the dark night and take our Republic with us.

[sneakypete]

For not one of Trump's appointed justices to take a stand to hear the case, I say there is something afoot here beyond perhaps our comprehension.  There are powerful forces working very hard to destroy this republic.  The big question is who is really pulling the strings?

@jafo2010

The answer seems simple enough to me once you ask the number 1 base question of "Who stands to profit?".

The answer,of course,is the international bankers.

[sneakypete]

I agree the breath of its decision is staggering @IsailedawayfromFR but disagree it has declared itself irrelevant.  The Supreme Court has declared itself, in no uncertain terms, now proudly political and exists to serve the democrat machine rather than the US Constitution.

We fight to the death on Jan 6 or we go quietly into the dark night and take our Republic with us.

@Right_in_Virginia

Yeah,the jury is still out on that one,and your guess is as good as mine as to how many are going to revolt if the result is an "owned government",and how many sit back and accept the "new massas'".

I don't even know what *I* am going to do at this point,so there is no way I can guess what others are going to do.

[catfish1957]

But they ARE historic figures. Only two of the nine even stood lightly against the EPIC cowardice the Court exhibited in failing to hear the Texas Case.

All 3 nominees of "I only hire the best" voted against him.  There is some kind of lesson here, that has yet to be written.

[sneakypete]

All 3 nominees of "I only hire the best" voted against him.  There is some kind of lesson here, that has yet to be written.

@catfish1957

Sadly,there is nothing new about weasels sucking up to you,and then stabbing you in the back to please new masters with more to offer.

That is why gallows were invented. Just sayin.........

[Smokin Joe]

All 3 nominees of "I only hire the best" voted against him.  There is some kind of lesson here, that has yet to be written.

They didn't vote against him, although that may have been their petty motivation...
... or they may have done so out of pure cowardice, unwilling to face the threats and vitriol promised, doubtlessly, by those committing or in sympathy with this incredible fraud.

But, in essence, they voted against the Republic, the relevance of their own positions, and the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Because no law under a Biden Administration will have been signed by a lawful POTUS, I will ignore them as void. The rest of America needs to make up their minds how they will act, but 70+ million acts of civil disobedience will speak louder than the shredded paper and deleted files at the polls.

They only have power if we concede it, if we give it to them, and I will not comply.

Note that to our north, like the Long Gun Registry didn't, the Semi-auto ban isn't getting compliance in Canada, either.
The registry was defeated by simply not complying.

I suggest we do the same with the Biden era laws, should he be sworn in. If communists can ignore the law in the streets, if prosecutors can ignore the law and their sworn duties and release the arrested criminals without charges, if the Mayors and Governors can ignore the law and clear will of the majority of people, If the SCOTUS can ignore cases of original jurisdiction, we can damned sure ignore anything they have to say.

[libertybele]

For not one of Trump's appointed justices to take a stand to hear the case, I say there is something afoot here beyond perhaps our comprehension.  There are powerful forces working very hard to destroy this republic.  The big question is who is really pulling the strings?

I believe George Soros, his children, and all the members of his foundations and financial contributors.

[libertybele]

They didn't vote against him, although that may have been their petty motivation...
... or they may have done so out of pure cowardice, unwilling to face the threats and vitriol promised, doubtlessly, by those committing or in sympathy with this incredible fraud.

But, in essence, they voted against the Republic, the relevance of their own positions, and the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Because no law under a Biden Administration will have been signed by a lawful POTUS, I will ignore them as void. The rest of America needs to make up their minds how they will act, but 70+ million acts of civil disobedience will speak louder than the shredded paper and deleted files at the polls.

They only have power if we concede it, if we give it to them, and I will not comply.

Note that to our north, like the Long Gun Registry didn't, the Semi-auto ban isn't getting compliance in Canada, either.
The registry was defeated by simply not complying.

I suggest we do the same with the Biden era laws, should he be sworn in. If communists can ignore the law in the streets, if prosecutors can ignore the law and their sworn duties and release the arrested criminals without charges, if the Mayors and Governors can ignore the law and clear will of the majority of people, If the SCOTUS can ignore cases of original jurisdiction, we can damned sure ignore anything they have to say.

In theory I agree with you.  Right now, BLM, Antifa and others are not complying with our laws nor living under the confines of our laws. 

Our turn to not comply perhaps, but in the end, I believe things will snowball out of control and we will eventually have complete anarchy.

I don't know if there is an alternative? 

It sure appears that we will have no choice.  Our back are already against the wall.

[Fishrrman]

RinVa writes:
"The Supreme Court has declared itself, in no uncertain terms, now proudly political and exists to serve the democrat machine rather than the US Constitution."

Perhaps they figure that they have to "go along" to get along.

That will work for the leftist members, and perhaps for John Roberts as well.

But aside from Justices Thomas and Alito, the rest of the "conservatives" are gonna find themselves relegated to "the back row" on the upcoming 15-member "New Supreme Court" that debuts in 2022...

[Right_in_Virginia]

RinVa writes:
"The Supreme Court has declared itself, in no uncertain terms, now proudly political and exists to serve the democrat machine rather than the US Constitution."

Perhaps they figure that they have to "go along" to get along.

That will work for the leftist members, and perhaps for John Roberts as well.

But aside from Justices Thomas and Alito, the rest of the "conservatives" are gonna find themselves relegated to "the back row" on the upcoming 15-member "New Supreme Court" that debuts in 2022...

They'll probably be relieved that they won't have to think or make a decision @Fishrrman

[IsailedawayfromFR]

They'll probably be relieved that they won't have to think or make a decision @Fishrrman

Then there is no reason for the court, and it needs to be dissolved.

The ONLY reason for it is to make decisions.

[skeeter]

RinVa writes:
"The Supreme Court has declared itself, in no uncertain terms, now proudly political and exists to serve the democrat machine rather than the US Constitution."

Perhaps they figure that they have to "go along" to get along.

That will work for the leftist members, and perhaps for John Roberts as well.

But aside from Justices Thomas and Alito, the rest of the "conservatives" are gonna find themselves relegated to "the back row" on the upcoming 15-member "New Supreme Court" that debuts in 2022...

The government, including the SCOTUS, is now a monolith existing only for its own benefit. Henceforth justice will be dispensed with government’s interests in mind exclusively.