Pages

Friday, December 11, 2020

Supreme Court declines its duty

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)

FRIDAY DECEMBER 11, 2020

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: 

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.

So, by a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court renders itself irrelevant. This is hardly a surprise; I never had any more faith in Barrett than in Roberts. Perhaps there are a few more permutations and a little more drama before the court option is entirely closed, but it is becoming increasingly likely that the decision to preserve the Constitution will fall to President Trump. 

May God grant him wisdom and inspire him to make the right decision.

It's worth noting that prior to the decision, Alexander Macris shared his doubts that it really mattered what the Supreme Court decided:

No matter what the Supreme Court rules, 70 million Americans are going to be very unhappy. For 46 states, 4 legislatures, 3 territories, and 2 governors of the Union to be involved in this lawsuit tells us that the stakes are incredibly high. Indeed, this is the gravest Constitutional Crisis since 1860. As such, there’s little reason to believe that the Supreme Court’s decision will put a definitive end to the crisis. Dred Scott didn’t stop the US Civil War, and Texas vs Pennsylvania may not stop whatever comes next.

Indeed. But, as always, wait two days AFTER Trump's initial comments in response to this abidication by the Supreme Court before reaching any conclusions. My immediate thought is that the president needed to all all the other options to be exhausted, and allow all other hopes to be extinguished, before taking on the burden of crossing the Rubicon by invoking the Insurrection Act.

Texas GOP responds:

Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.

Perhaps indeed.

243 comments:

  1. Declare martial law. Without the courts doing their job, there can be no justice ever again in this country

    ReplyDelete
  2. So why do we even have a supreme court if they won't decide a case of this importance?

    Cross the Rubicon, Mr. President!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What IS the supreme court?

      Delete
    2. We don’t need Caesar, we need Cicero, short, sharp violent, irreversible.

      Delete
  3. Anger, shock, disbelief.... I can't describe exactly what I'm feeling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel the same. Its not weak to hope for a political solution, as long shot as it were.
      Now let's crush our enemies.

      Delete
  4. It's gonna be a tough two days to wait to see how this hashes out. I'm almost excited to get the extralegal options going but I allow that Trump has pulled off bigger turnarounds in the past and, considering Trump and his family's personal destruction is on the line, this next one promises to be a doozy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I especially had little faith in Barrett. That the Republican Senate was willing to put her through relatively quickly was a red flag.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Irrelevant court. Full of weaklings.

    I pray God gives him the strength, to do what must be done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Enough states should refuse to send electors. This will solve the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What good is a court that won't hear a case?

    I was saying earlier today that the Left will delegitimize any institution they cannot retain control of. Looks as if they didn't anticipate being able to maintain control of the supremes.

    Come on, Trump, the sooner you stop playing games the less damage the Left can do to our institutions. Delay long enough and you will be president of the Untied States.

    ReplyDelete
  9. https://twitter.com/LouDobbs/status/1337154346795012098

    If this indeed gets proven before the world's eyes, the CCP's reputation worldwide is going to get annihilated. OBOR will likely be crippled for the near future which will cause a sharp economic downturn for China. The CCP just may be going the way of the USSR in just as abrupt a manner.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Soap box
    Ballot box
    Jury box
    Ammo box <- we are here

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pray and hope, and now might be the time to actually get to know your neighbors if you haven't already.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Time to cross the Rubicon. We're with you GEOTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not only has SCOTUS declined its constitutional duty, it has solidified the eventual dissolution of the Union. It does indeed now fall on the shoulders of one man. He's already exposed the GOP as feckless and weak, continually caught flat footed by democrats. Now, he will have to expose how corrupt the DC establishment really is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One GBU-88 at the base of the TGD will solve this neatly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How did Thomas and Alito ever make it on the court?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The uniparty is in the process of doubling-down into a hot civil war. They're betting millions of lives on: A) the newly minted surfs not being willing to revolt; B) the God-Emperor not being willing to risk open war in order to fulfill his duty; C) the pozz in the military being willing to go along with the steal. Based on the JFK steal and the 2018 mid-term frauds, they have precedent to believe they'll get away with it, but at what point does the hubris get the better of them?

    ReplyDelete
  17. F**k.
    I was fairly sure that SCOTUS was puss out.
    Well, now we know. Only Alito and Thomas have balls.
    I also didn't approve of ACB. Women belong at home, not in politics.

    The Rubicon must be crossed.
    Deus vult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, But I doubt Trump crosses the Rubicon.

      Delete
  18. Well, well, well. "No standing"?? Really? Now what?

    ReplyDelete
  19. We have to be close to "My fellow Americans, a storm is upon us."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rattlesnake_Kid,
    $400,000,000? Are they sure that's not in pesos or something? Wow. Interesting times. Regardless of the next few weeks, lots of faith in the system has been sowed in a very short time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have two questions:

    1) What will Trump crossing the rubicon look entail?
    2) Will Trump have the right people in the right positions backing him up to pull it off?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Vox flat-out said he had no confidence that the SCOTUS would take the Texas case. I am not at all surprised that he was right. Trump needs to declare martial law and start arresting corrupt judges and politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thomas and Alito are right. This represents a gross dereliction of duty on the part of SCOTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Welp...the courts aren't the only way. I'm gonna give it 48 hours before I start looking for Dad's hipwaders. I figure we're gonna get wet this month one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @5 Cedric: "I especially had little faith in Barrett."

    Neither did I. She's a Vatican II "Catholic." That's all anyone needs to know.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm getting really tired of all this lawlessness. Mark Zuckerberg needs to be arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So the SCOTUS is of the opinion that election fraud is perfectly fine as long as the governing body of the state in which the fraud took place thinks so. Irrelevant indeed. Time for Trump to show what he is made of.

    Thy will be done.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nothing can stop what is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Do not dispair! This may be an opportunity for take the battle to the enemy on a personal level.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Flinch!

    Back tail end of the 70’s we Wolverine wee ones used to play a somewhat dangerous game called “flinch” in the Michigan woodlands.

    Under referee of the elder peers, next grade up typically, mostly the mouthy obnoxious ones, we would put out bare feet in close proximity near a creek to wash the inevitable blood away. Thence the turns would take, us forcibly heaving large sharp survival knives or actual tomahawks either at our own foot or else at the adversary’s foot, tactics elected. Penalty being if we pierced our own foot, only laughter would result, because we were weak. Also blood loss and the potential of permanent disability. Or, if we penetrated the adversary’s foot and drew blood, we got cut by the adversary or at his election an elder, typically in the ass but not infrequently in the delta triceps or bicep. Stabbed or as we called it “poked. flinch!” Otherwise a point might be scored if the blade landed close enough to a foot to impress the crowd and so on until next round.

    Now that we’re in it, you and me. We could actually bleed to death and will certainly be crippled for a time. Flinch!

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is an alternative to invoking the Insurrection Act. There's enough evidence to arrest Biden on charges of Bribery. Later than I would have wished (this should have been done at the first debate), but better late than never.

    ReplyDelete
  32. An omnipotent Supreme Court is one of the fatal flaws (there are others) in this system of governance. Nine little gods.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Did this really surprise anyone? ACB is a fraud, Kavanaugh has been wishy washy since he started, Roberts has always been a traitor.

    This country will get what it deserves. Never place your faith in human beings

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not man, not woman, not beast. But this, Conan. This you can teust.

      Delete
  34. Were Thomas and Alito really dissenting, though? They basically said that they would take the case, but would not grant injunctive relief. Would that mean that after December 14 the case would become moot anyway and they would have dropped it or would they have been willing to overturn an Electoral College vote if the Electoral selection (i.e. the Election Day vote) were shown to be fraudulent after it had taken place?

    In other words, were they signaling that they would take the case and potentially throw out the vote, or that they would formally take the case merely to drop it later?

    Was the dissent meaningful?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Texas just released a statement which appears to be a call for secession.

    Things are about to get very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elon musk moved to Texas. So did joe rogan. And today Oracle said it's moving a whole load to Texas.

      Something sure is up.

      Delete
  36. Thomas is usually a pussy. I wonder what changed his mind.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "How did Thomas and Alito ever make it on the court?"

    Tokens.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This is the final veil to be removed for a lot of people. The ruling class is exposed for their corruption.

    People know what needs to be done. They just need a leader.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This decision, this case, was not what Trump was referring to when he talked of things to come.

    ReplyDelete
  40. All the rot exposed and the ENTIRE judicial system puts its head in the sand. I didn't see that coming. I thought they'd be smarter and more honest than that.

    I guess that leaves Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If the states do not have standing to sue one another in the supreme court of the US, then who does?

    ReplyDelete
  42. What do expect from "glorified" lawyers...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Time for Lincoln to send supplies and reinforcement to Ft Sumter.

    ReplyDelete
  44. SCOTUS means nothing now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Aw damn. This is not good. Yeah I know to trust the plan and all, but one always hopes these things get resolved amicably. Or at least peacefully.

    I'm not an American citizen, nor do I even reside on the continent, but I have really good friends there and I really hope they aren't negatively affected by this bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  46. SCOTUS’ denial of the case doesn’t end the dispute between States which Texas tried to resolve civilly and peacefully.

    That it was unable to do so isn’t the end.

    There are other ways to resolve disputes between the States.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I’m not surprised by this.

    It matters not, Rubicon will be crossed.

    Get ready lads

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol no it won’t nerd

      Delete
    2. @Ace

      Do you have food and water rations for at least a month? If not you'll want to stock up tomorrow.

      Delete
  48. have peace. smile. enjoy the winds, for the storm sweeps towards us. the rubicon shall be crossed. have faith. pray.
    God's will be done.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Soapbox censored.
    Ballot box corrupted.
    Jury box denied.

    That leaves...

    ReplyDelete
  50. I can't see them saying Lin Wood doesn't have standing, his case is docketed anyway

    ReplyDelete
  51. The court cucked. Just like they always do.
    Imagine my shark. And that shark is getting tired.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Like you, I had little faith in Barrett. Anyone who thinks of Pope Francis with high regard, as she does, is not much of a conservative to start with,
    apart from that cultish evangelical church she subscribes to.
    The rahrahing of her as the smartest of her generation, by even liberals, struck me as over the top.
    Of course, Texas has standing, if its vote is diluted and rendered null by fraudulent votes elsewhere.
    Well and good. I studied constitutional law and thought that Supreme Court opinions were actually quite poorly argued, mostly backing into political positions already held.
    Unfortunately, the Sanhedrin that rules us has made sure that Talmudic casuistry in service of power politics passes for law, while that coequal branch of brainwashing, the media, does its bit by sanctifying the Court above all other branches.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The Judiciary have been Irrelevant for a while now. They are only relevant insofar as *enforcement* of their decrees are carried out. Otherwise, they are just a group of 9 blokes pontificating on issues that are often outside their depth and scope. I am not at all surprised therefore at their Cowardice.

    The good news in all this is that now the President has just cause to carry out *HIS* duties as the Executive (co-equal to the Judiciary and Legislative branches); a la invoking the Insurrection Act. When (not if) he does so, all the Seditious Rats need to be incarcerated and purged en masse.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Let these scumbag vermin be the first to hang. Republiscum traitors worse than the leftists. They stabbed Trump in the back and want to drag us down into socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 2 days? I’ve been waiting patiently and faithfully since 4 NOV. Every apparent win has been quickly defeated. Handily. Look I fight to the bitter end but at this point it’s going to take Frodo to get us out of this.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Come to think of it, SCOTUS did GEOTUS a favor ruling so quickly.

    Time to cowboy up and zero rifles for 400 yards.

    ReplyDelete
  57. By not directly taking on the issue of organized election fraud, the courts have allowed criminals to dictate the future of US elections, making them completely illegitimate. The importance of this case was NOT lost on this court, given nearly all states sent briefs in support of either side, they HAVE to realize the result will be war.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Untwist yer panties ladies. This isn't Trump's lawsuit. His is still on the docket.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well, they didn't rule on anything. No reason not to forge ahead with the Insurrection Act to resolve all of these issues of timeliness, standing and lashes that are unable to secure the free and fair elections of the U.S.A.

    ReplyDelete
  60. We await our President's response.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A water crossing signal?

    President Trump makes Christmas Eve a federal holiday

    By Steven Nelson

    December 11, 2020 | 4:28pm

    https://nypost.com/2020/12/11/president-trump-makes-christmas-eve-a-federal-holiday/

    ReplyDelete
  62. Canadian_Warlord,
    $400m is a fraction of what China has already lost because of Trump's trade war, and practically negligent compared to what they stand to lose because of Trump serving two terms.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Well, America, you have no standing to contest the independence of the Republic of Texas and our confiscation of the nuclear weapons stored at Pantex."

    ReplyDelete
  64. With zero legal background I wonder does a citizen class action lawsuit against the state in which they reside make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 2 days my ass, Trump needs to step up tomorrow at the DC march and make history!

    ReplyDelete
  66. These cowards on SCOTUS... Why the hell are they even in their position if they have no intention of upholding the constitution and protecting the Union? These fake fucks only want titles, money, and power but don't want to take on any of the unflattering hard decisions that result in very serious consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  67. >> Or at least peacefully.

    It. Was. Never. Going. To. Be. Resolved. Peacefully.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Unless Trump's weak to the point of suicide, he will act...If he's that weak, we are better off without him.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lock and Load--as soon as we exhaust all other options. I'm ready, willing, and able.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hold the line. Let's see what DNI Ratcliffe has to say on the 18th

    ReplyDelete
  71. “Untwist yer panties ladies.”

    They hate us because they first hated Trump. Depending on lawyers and the “system” to do what’s right makes about as much sense trusting YT and Twitter to do the same. I have to go comfort my wife now.

    VOX MAXIM: In the end there’s only the war.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Drinking homemade wine next to a fire. Bin the morning I am sharpening the bayonet on the AK!

    ReplyDelete
  73. If the Supreme Court won't do its job. Its time to Neuter it Permanently:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHm5w8egcs8

    ReplyDelete
  74. BTW the Great Cuckening of "conservatives" is opening a lot of eyes and minds. I'm a little entertained at this.
    Don't know what fills the void but everybody dies eventually do what the heck enjoy the fuckery.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Not surprised the legal channels failed. Technically there are others that can still be taken, it's not over yet from that perspective, but I don't see any particular individuals in the legal system who could actually be relied on to any meaningful degree. Trump still has the military, although I'm not really clearly set on one side or another whether or not he'll actually use it.

    It's never really over, though, unless you stop fighting. At this point there is absolutely no reason for anybody on the right to take part in elections anymore. I don't care about dumb arguments to force gridlock by ramming GOP losers through, we're out of the system now, it's clear we're not going to be given representation unless its on their terms. We will still be taxed though, so keep that in mind. There are a lot of pre-dominantly right-wing services which are offered to society, the one I can think of specifically in terms of overwhelming Trump support is the police. It is entirely possible for right-wingers to do considerably harm to the country's infrastructure and quality of life, if they decide that it doesn't deserve what it extracts from them. I don't know how likely that is but I suggest all right-wingers prepare themselves mentally for civil disobedience.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @71: That's most kind of President Trump. For all of his gruff exterior, I get the impression he's soft-hearted on the inside.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Take heart men! We know who wins in the end!

    As for this bump in the road? No matter what happens, the veil has been removed for the majority of the country. This doesn't end in January, even if Biden takes the oath.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "How I learned to stop worrying and love packing the court."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Been following Vox's blog for a while now. I haven't commented much, though.

    If one state does not have standing to challenge another state in court about following the Constitution then who does? It seems like with all of these lawsuits, no one has "standing" to ensure that states conduct honest elections for a national political office that affects all of them.

    There are local Democrats that are using their prosecutions of people for political ends. We know they cheated. They know they cheated. They know that we know that they cheated.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Abe Lincoln contemplated arresting Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (who actually had the law on his side at the time), but ultimately decided against it.

    The GE, on the other hand, has the law on HIS side this time, whereas the one legal body charged with upholding the Law of the Land has abandoned it. The GE really, REALLY should put bracelets and orange jumpsuits on all nine of these traitors, having more than sufficient justification to do so. The nation will rejoice loudly if he does.

    Oh, what a Christmas present that would be!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Creepy Uncle Joe intends to pack the court full of neoliberal loyalists. If the Supreme Court doesn't do their duty now, they may cease to be relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "A republic if you can keep it."

    ReplyDelete
  83. Imagine this: The Vice President Pence is the one who will tabulate the votes coming from the Electoral College to Congress. He starts counting -- but wait! A water pipe has broken! So, everybody out, we'll come back and resume this tomorrow. But Pence doesn't leave! Instead, cameras observe him discovering a suitcase under a desk, and he gets back to work. The next morning Trump has won the EC vote by a count of 424 to 298.

    How can that be? How can you have more electoral votes than electors?

    Well ain't that a bitch. But apparently legal. And if you disagree? Pick one: it's too late or you don't have standing.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Supreme Court just punted the issue to the state legislatures in WI, MI, PA, and GA without saying that is what it just did.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @39 I'm sure you'll lead the way with a bayonet between your jaws, mr. internet tough guy.

    ReplyDelete
  86. ". Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. "


    But the same court insisted it was their business to determine how a state conducts its marriages.


    The judiciary seems inevitably to do the wrong thing or not do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

    - "President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land."

    ReplyDelete
  88. Get ready for battle.
    We're under attack.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the "Russian Revolution." It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators."

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    https://archive.org/details/SolzhenitsynYouMustUnderstandTheLeadingBolsheviksWhoTookOverRussiaWereNotRussians

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Hey, stranger. What's the name of that river up ahead?"
    "Why, sir, it be called The Rubicon!"

    ReplyDelete
  91. Conservative pundits convincing us this really is a win and subscribe to their private forum to learn more in 3, 2, 1 . . .

    ReplyDelete
  92. 20 states, 20 U.S. states, said we have a serious problem here. This must be resolved. Evidence must be heard. A decision must be handed down.

    Supreme Court: Nah, bro.

    What. The. Fuck?!?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Preserving the Union probably requires a little bit more than the proclamations of a few SCOTUS priest and priestesses. Are they going to sanction mass repatriations of some sorts? No way you say? Well what does that tell you our options are for preserving the Union intact?

    This was the best possible outcome. Now, hold the line, we have another decade and a half to go.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I'm a little surprised all three of Trump's appointees cucked to the pathetic arguments from the cheaters. But an attempt by foreign agents and domestic traitors to defraud American voters and overthrow the government of the US probably should have been a military matter from the start, not one for the courts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That all three cucked is a source of hope for me. Either Trump is hopelessly betrayed or they're all in on it. The first means Trump may be persuaded to use other means while the second means the came is still afoot.

      For example this Texas suit lasted only long enough to punch through safe harbor day. It may be that it was no longer necessary, to be optimistic.

      Delete
  95. Oh and remember how all the establishment conservatives trashed
    Lin Wood for telling people not to vote unless the GOP in Georgia backed Trump on the fraud? Now do you see why he did? Why give legitimacy to a system this effed from top to bottom? It's insulting to banana republics to call the USA one. Banana republics don't go around telling other countries how to conduct their elections while puking over their own.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Perhaps the SC expects President Trump to cross the Rubicon!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Wonder if POTUS organized SCOTUS to this end?

    ReplyDelete
  98. ACB is a mom of 7 young children. She is vulnerable and can be manipulated, (threats) just saying....regardless of her grandstanding during her confirmation of being an 'originalist'. So much for her originalism. All these people 'up there' are the same. Screw them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She ain’t vulnerable and like Creepy Joe she ain’t even really Catholic in the classic sense. She was and has been on the other side for a long time.....just look at her family “picture”
      Snd it is all you really need to know.

      The Supreme Court route would have been relatively easy. Few things in life worth a darn are easy.

      Delete
    2. I agree. She is a race traitor. Big reason why I have been suspicious of modern day Christianity.

      Delete
    3. Never trust a career woman...doubly so one w 7 YOUNG children

      Delete
  99. Pennsylvania's own legislature didn't have standing?

    ReplyDelete
  100. God bless Trump and may all those who rejected him on nothing more than his personality be eternally condemned. Pathetic tone police.

    Trump: Are you with me?
    Us: To the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with Trump. Right now, I have more faith in trump than God. Unlike God, Trump actually does something and shows up.

      Delete
  101. Trump throughout his presidency has been giving institutions and politicians the chance to do the right thing, for seemingly no other reason than to demonstrate that given the choice, they will not do so.

    I don't know who else has yet to shed the mask before Trump crosses the Rubicon, but it will be to his benefit that his supporters understand that when it comes to the civilian powers in government, Trump stands pretty much alone.

    My guess is that Trump is going to let the Electoral College vote for Biden on Monday before he drops the hammer. Optics-wise there is no turning back for any of the deep state actors or Biden after that point (not that there was any turning back once they committed the fraud).

    ReplyDelete
  102. It truly was a long shot; other options exist. Big question is it going to be a matter of if or when. I’m betting on when. I believe what Vox and a couple others have said, POTUS needs to look “reasonable” before invoking his Constitutional powers. The Supremes may have just done Gina huge favor.

    We still need to not only keep the faith, but keep our prayers for him going....now Is not to time to give in or give up.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Supreme Cowards of the United States. Seven spineless weasels in black robes just shat on the Constitution and openly sided with the lawless enemies of America. If these treacherous bastards continue to deny legal recourse to rectify this election conspiracy, may they become casualties of their own doing, and sent swiftly to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Relax. Accept the worst, pray for the best, and see what Monday brings.

    Meanwhile, see to your kit; do your what-iffing, and
    relax. Just because we are blind and ignorant, doesn't mean GEOTUS is.

    Quit jumping at plot twists.

    ReplyDelete
  105. 116 he likely isn't displeased they ruled quickly...

    ReplyDelete
  106. Supreme Court just punted the issue to the state legislatures in WI, MI, PA, and GA without saying that is what it just did.

    Great. Re-submit the suit, except with the legislatures of the affected states as the primary plaintiffs. PA and GA legislatures are already amici.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I'm pretty sure that the Trump Legal/Intel team have devastating evidence of voter fraud/foreign involvement.

    I am also pretty sure that when it happens, it won't be a cream pie in their face, but a brick.

    And once that happens, all bets are off for the insurrectionist/traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Kind of needs SCOTUS to not be his lackey to start with.
    They have cover now to uphold insurrection act invocation if needed as they have proven impartial.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Any bets on where Sumter 2.0 will be?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Wow. I knew there was a pretty good chance they'd cuck, but figured they would take the case, and slap down one state so looked like they did something, but not enough to affect a Biden result.

    But a total punt? Holy shit.

    ReplyDelete
  111. SCOTUS didn't do their job. and in the unlikely event the country persisted after them, then us, failing... what makes them think they are safe? their "precedent" makes for a humorous epitaph.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Sold out by the 3 people he appointed. We can forget the Supreme Court in this battle. Their credibility is gone in my book, irrelevent. They failed at a critical test, so forget them.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Vox, I probably missed it from years ago, but where does the "wait two days" come from? I know that being quick to rush to judgement is not something any man should do.

    ReplyDelete
  114. 1 - Soap [X]

    2 - Ballot [X]

    3 - Jury [X]

    4 - Ammo [?]

    A little more than a month and 2 & 3 seem to be gone. Bold for the supreme court to dismiss it when 46 states are involved in the cases. At the very least it should have had its day in court. This is not healthy. Ignoring the problem will make it worse. At this rate I do not care if we end up with Trump or Biden but we need to be able address and fix whatever vulnerabilities there are in our election process.

    The absolute failure to maintain chain of custody in multiple states, rando's dropping off boxes of ballots, sketchy operational procedures procedures "we're closed, no jk keep counting, let me just grab these votes from under the desk", instances where there are tens of thousands more votes than registered voters, and untraceable ballots are a huge problem.

    A wedge has been set in our system. It needs to be extracted, not ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Supposedly, the SC didn't reject hearing the case outright but rather hey didn't want to decide whether to hear the case until it was introduced a certain way and that this rejection is just a technicality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack - I read it with the same understanding. I'm not an attorney but it didn't sound like this is the absolute end in it's wording.

      Delete
  116. I'm pretty sure that the Trump Legal/Intel team have devastating evidence of voter fraud/foreign involvement.

    They do, and so do others. Anyone who's been paying attention can point to plenty of it. But evidence isn't worth much if there's no courtroom to present it in. If SCOTUS is afraid to even look at it, that leaves the court of public opinion. That's hard to reach these days with the media being all-in for the steal, so that might tell you what needs to happen next.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Seven more enemies of America exposed!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Standing depends on what foot you stand on, obviously.

    I doubt they planned on resolving this through the courts or through the Republican legislators. I certainly wouldn't and didn't bet any confidence on them, and I am much less informed.

    This case came in quickly and defused the Supreme Court, so it may have been part of a larger move.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "Time to unzip & mount up" - O. Benjamin

    ReplyDelete
  120. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

    Because apparently Texas does not have cognizable interest in either the will of its voters or the next president of the US.

    Heads down, barrels up, put them under and pave them over.

    ReplyDelete
  121. ...Any bets on where Sumter 2.0 will be?....

    YouTube/Twitter/facebook server farms.

    ReplyDelete
  122. When 46 states are involved in a dispute over election integrity, the SCOTUS is there to mediate as the highest court in the Union. That there is no precedent is immaterial, because it has not happened in the past, does not preclude the necessity to arbitrate novel issues. The SCOTUS has just buried their heads in the sand. Nothing good will come of this.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Embarrassing. An Italian and a Black judge stood up for Trump, the white judges just cucked. I am just speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  124. "Supposedly, the SC didn't reject hearing the case outright but rather hey didn't want to decide whether to hear the case until it was introduced a certain way and that this rejection is just a technicality."

    It's absolutely a technicality, and even a justifiable one at that. But dismissing it out-of-hand is unwise at a minimum. There's more yet to come, certainly, so we'll simply have to wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  125. In a strange way, my gut feels a quiet resignation to reality. We have been cultured to depend on some glorious man 'savior' to do our job - which we have neglected for generations.
    I am planning to wish one of my grandsons Happy Birthday in a few days - and also an apology for my generation and DaBoomers - for leaving him and his ftiends this freaking mess.
    At the same time, I have seen enough of the rest of his generation Z to give me enough hope that their mettle is much stronger than ours.
    All of us see through the glass DARKLY - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2020/11/we-all-see-through-glass-darkly-theres.html?m=0 - I posted that 2 weeks ago - bears repeating if you wish to read it.
    Whether Trump crosses the danged Rubicon or not, as so many of us claim Trump should - I ain't depending on it. Frankly I don't care anymore!
    We ALL have our own to cross because we answer to a higher court than SCOTUS and a true Commander of our forces - the true Rubicom crosser Himself 2000 years ago.
    Trump isn't on trial here - WE ARE!
    There's a bigger picture here!

    ReplyDelete
  126. All I know if is these 3 Trump appointed had tried this with the mafia, they have disappeared, found in a barrell, or wearing cement shoes. The Mafia had alot of problems, but they did deal with traitors in the correct fashion. I am still furious about this sellout.

    ReplyDelete
  127. No one ever has standing to challenge election fraud. Unless they are Africans. Africans always have standing. Because reasons.

    The truth is that "standing" is a judicial invention to avoid hearing cases that judges do not want to hear. I thought the Texas suit might be one they would take, but they didn't and dismissed it on the flimsiest pretext in their arsenal.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Pratisara wrote:Elon musk moved to Texas. So did joe rogan. And today Oracle said it's moving a whole load to Texas.

    Something sure is up.


    Parasite's just jumping hosts, fren

    ReplyDelete
  129. @145 Who do you think put Trump in power? Against all odds. Hillary should have won 2016... but she didn't. God works thru human hands.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Jack Tanner wrote:I'm with Trump. Right now, I have more faith in trump than God. Unlike God, Trump actually does something and shows up.

    Wew, Lad.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I always liked Clarence Thomas, and I'm glad he didn't disappoint over such and important moment

    ReplyDelete
  132. "Untwist yer panties ladies. This isn't Trump's lawsuit. His is still on the docket."

    Anyone who hadn't already their knickers twisted hasn't been paying attention and isn't prepared. The Overton ribbon's been parting for a long time now, fast or slow.

    "They failed at a critical test, so forget them."

    We'll see if they get another chance. However, if the final result is failure, don't forget them. Remember, decisions have consequences, it's only fair that Justices are served just desserts.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Unlike so many others, I never expected the Supreme Court to step up and defuse the situation. They are naturally loathe to wade into what they brush away as purely political considerations. WE should not expect too much of them because they will only disappoint us.

    They have the ability to live with contradictions and inconsistency, because it does not cost them anything. So it has been decided that the law in this country no longer matters and the Constitution is no longer in effect, except when they hide behind it. Now, it has been thrown in our face, the most blatant theft of a presidential election since 1824. Should WE surrender? There is NO such choice. Either WE will be hanged as prisoners, should WE surrender, or WE will be hanged as rebels, if WE do not surrender. Either way, WE are told WE will be hanged by the Leftist Radicals. What choice did they leave us or Trump?

    ReplyDelete
  134. “I doubt they planned on resolving this through the courts or through the Republican legislators.”

    Then all we’ve done is waste time. Unless it really is a movie and in which case this is exactly the kind of tension you want to build just before the climax. Brilliant. But I’m admittedly somewhat skeptical of Q given some of its similarities with Nostradamus.

    ReplyDelete
  135. @141 Creator: "A wedge has been set in our system. It needs to be extracted, not ignored."

    Looks like the whole SYSTEM needs to be extracted. I'm thinking that if SCOTUS had heard the case and ruled favorably towards Trump then we would only have gained a little breathing room until the next demonic assault by the (((left))).
    This way, though, the whole house of cards falls down and we get down and dirty with our (((enemies))), arrogant, slimy pricks one and all. (((They))) consider us sub-human beasts who must be exterminated. I'm ready to take it to 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Do we accept tyranny with the false face of democracy? That is basically what Roberts and six of the justices told us to accept. That there is no recourse to fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Unlike God, Trump actually does something and shows up.

    Unlike Trump, God's showing is so ubiquitous that you've had to wade in denial so you can't see your own consequences attached to your feet. Bad news, the waters of denial are receding and you were never deeper than the flood plain, you couldn't either stand or swim in the river proper.

    ReplyDelete
  138. This was expected. What comes next will be whether someone will fight for America, or not, in the political classes. The last group is the people themselves. Or not.

    ReplyDelete
  139. "
    It's absolutely a technicality"


    No, it's not, it's patently dishonest. A technicality might be claiming that Texas had no standing. Claiming that the court cannot understand/recognize Texas' proper interest is a plain lie.

    ReplyDelete
  140. There is no reason to be sad at this. Feel pity? sure. Feel angry? Possibly. But everything is playing out in order to give the other side to come to their senses or show their hand as to what side they are on.

    Back in 2016 we wondered where Romnie and Cruz stood. Now we know Romnie is a globalist, Cruiz is a Texan.

    We saw to what depths the Liberals and Progressives would go and now we are seeing fracturing in the Liberal camp as some are stating to see the hipocracy.

    We are in the crucible. Either Trump will bring Yehway's cleansing or another will rise to take his place. Or Yahway will purge this nation like he purged Babylon.

    America will be formed anew, hopefully wiser for the pain.

    ReplyDelete
  141. So why do we even have a supreme court if they won't decide a case of this importance over which they have original jurisdiction?

    That bolded point that I added is the real crux of the matter. Why, indeed, should we tolerate them if they don't even have the stones to do what one could argue is one of their primary constitutional duties?

    ReplyDelete
  142. @144 As a woman I stand by what I said.

    Rubicon crossing up ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  143. If you are behind enemy lines, start flying the Texas flag?

    ReplyDelete
  144. If SCOTUS is afraid to even look at it, that leaves the court of public opinion. That's hard to reach these days with the media being all-in for the steal, so that might tell you what needs to happen next.

    SCOTUS isn't over yet.

    Pay attention when I say his Legal/Intel Team.

    As for the media, who needs the "media" when you have declared an insurrection, and Martial Law if need be?

    As some up there said earlier, let it play out.

    ReplyDelete
  145. And those states should purge the SJW leftists and send them to California.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Trump's latest tweet.
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337586206683574272
    Does he seem upset?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Even here some are understandably trying to spin this gut punch as yet another disguised tactical success serving the interest of a cunning step in the greater strategic victory. I admire the tenacity. But eventually we must be at peace that the Calvary ain’t coming because it’s us. It always was. This is a culture war. Trump is a symbol; not the substance and certainly not a savior. Whether now or in 4 years he’d be gone. What then? Do we stop? Does Vox close shop? Do we resume our Netflix accounts, send donations to BLM and renew ESPN?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Acts 3:6-10

      Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
      And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
      And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
      And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
      And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

      As always, we prepare, wait, and pray for God to heal our broken nation. Have faith.

      Delete
  148. "No, it's not, it's patently dishonest. A technicality might be claiming that Texas had no standing. Claiming that the court cannot understand/recognize Texas' proper interest is a plain lie."

    Don't be a sperg. Read the statement, then go to a dictionary and look up the definition of "technicality". You are reading legalese and acting like it correlates 1:1 to vernacular English. It does not.

    ReplyDelete
  149. "Never trust a career woman...doubly so one w 7 YOUNG children"

    ACB only has 5 children.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I’ve always thought from the beginning, whatever happens it has to awaken the salvageable 30% of the population that is asleep. Otherwise there will be no peace and no resolution. A technical Supreme Court ruling citing constitutional arguments isn’t it. People must see the proof.

    ReplyDelete
  151. “Does he seem upset?”

    No but he hadn’t heard about SCOTUS rejection yet. I’d bet he’s a little pissed now though. Give it 2 days.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Why you shouldn’t trust lawyers:

    Several years ago I was pinned under and nearly killed by a weight machine. When seeking mild restitution my lawyer told me I didn’t have a chance. Rather, with all seriousness he said, “If you were killed, then you’d have a strong case.”

    ReplyDelete
  153. I had hoped that we could avoid this. So be it.

    FYI, noticed a few days ago something that I've never seen before - nine of ten Nimitz class carriers are in port. Nimitz herself is ready to strike Iran, Ronald Reagan is home in Japan. The other eight are in defensive positions around North America. Record amounts of military air traffic bringing US troops back home.

    Trudeau has had the PLA doing Winter training in Canada. The reason they have been so lazy with Biden is that they made a deal with the UN for an all out invasion if Trump won't leave. "Don't shoot until you see the blue of their helmets" might become a real battle cry.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Perhaps the million or so patriots now in DC will express their disappointment in an appropriate manner.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I am calm, although pissed. In the end, we are the Kraken. We'll know what needs to be done on January 20.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Parailax hit the nail on the head. Did George Wsshington file a grievance with the King? Did the Southern States file a brief wth the Supreme Court? It has always been "the people" We got here because we abrogated our responsibility to another entity, usually political. Our second amendment was enshrined for this time. We have talked, and postured... are we the generation that gets back on our knees and submits?

    ReplyDelete
  157. SCOTUS cucked out on this one, did they?

    This is unfortunate. I thought there was a chance they would take this seriously. Acceptance of voter fraud on this scale means the republic in any meaningful sense is over. As constitutional lawyers, they should surely understand the gravity of this situation. Yes they still cucked it.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Texas be like: "Well we tried to be civil..."

    ReplyDelete
  159. @117

    If her judicial independence or objectivity is limited by her maternal cares in an individual case, she should recuse in that matter. If she is compromised generally by those considerations, then she should resign. Given the recency of her appointment, she probably should have declined if that became obvious during the appointment and confirmation. This applies to any members who sense a familial threat.

    But we know that's not the problem. The problem is the jurisprudence is necromancy, with ritual incantations to claim fealty to doctrines like stare decisis or to dispense with them for any or no reason when they deem it necessary. "Judicially cognizable" isn't even good bovine excrement.

    Unfortunately, three of the members of the Court are the President's appointees that chicken-sh*tted . Had they served the country, instead of Roberts and the left, it would be 5-4. Two are Harvard products and Barrett wasn't going to join Yalies Alito and Thomas.

    I was deeply concerned when I heard with regard to his first pick, the President was favoring Ivy Leaguers and I remember he made an especially big deal about Gorsuch's Harvard JD. I suppose he wasn't looking for a Harriet Miers episode.

    That is the foundry of the swamp and has been at least since the days of the odious Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.


    Even people not on the right realize the problem of the Harvard Yale duopoly:

    "People of this pedigree often live in a world that does not necessarily parallel the life experiences of most Americans. And that is where more diversity is needed."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/07/10/the-cloistered-harvard-yale-law-monopoly-on-the-supreme-court/

    ReplyDelete
  160. Gothmog: "Fear. The city is rank with it."

    ReplyDelete
  161. Anyway, it is upsetting, but why wouldn't a pat, easy victory denied to you not be upsetting? Think about it...this case just comes out of the blue, is touted as "The Big One," with all kinds of lofty expectations built into it...I mean, it was bound not to operate in the way we expected. There simply isn't going to be a pat and easy victory with the Court siding with Trump and the matter kicked to the House of Representatives, for an easy win.

    We expected a "conservative" court to give "conservative" victories, but that sets up a problem in reverse, where now normie Democrats think they have been cheated, and now the system continues being perceived as illegitimate.

    Trump's strategy can neither depend on the Court alone, nor the simple invocation of the Insurrection Act. What is also woven in is the presence of foreign actors corrupting the process. It is better to fix the system if the corruption is perceived as something external brought in by corrupt domestic elements, like Democrats colluding with the Chinese, then perceived as inherently corrupt. I think Trump is trying to maneuver that in place as a reason for the Insurrection Act.

    Remember, Trump can break the system anytime he wants. He can bide his time to do that.

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the blog