I remember after election day a couple of months ago, most people supporting Trump were very optimistic that SCOTUS would come to the rescue. Countless memes floated around social media raising our hopes that the Court would prevent the certification of the results in key swing states. And then the Texas case happened and not only did SCOTUS not rule in favor of Texas, they outright rejected the case due to "lack of standing".
The justices at SCOTUS (the conservative ones) had the opportunity to be remembered as some of the most consequential justices ever. But now as the expansion of SCOTUS is more likely with Dems controlling both the House and the Senate, these justices would become some of the most irrelevant justices of all time.
People often talk about oaths which makes me roll my eyes. Most people would rather cover their asses than stand up for the oaths they took. For the majority of people, oaths are simply empty words.
Yes. Most human beings disappoint.
Roberts is most likely compromised. Sadly, this has enabled abuse of the FISA court due to his role at appointing and overseeing that area.
A lot of one time pillars ended their very relevance with their betrayals not just of Trump and the American people, but of their own commission. The fifth estate. The courts. Law enforcement. Conservatives and liberals. They just don't matter. Their agents can harm you, but it's just sadism. Their purpose isn't even perverted or corrupted, it's just gone.
The can add justices. They needn't, they own the court 7-2, but the could. But here's the thing. They could abolish it, and the end would be the same. Like no cops or cops letting Antifa run wild. Or the medical establishment and their covid vacation from real ailments.
No one gives a solid shit about Fox Or CNN. They decided to be propaganda. When the tyrants holds total sway, they don't need skilled people for the job. Any shmoe who can read in front of a mic will do. They aren't respected, liked, heeded or needed, any of them. And they tried so hard to fuck themselves this way. They might have won. Absolutely nothing. Maybe they can fuck a slave and not go to jail or get a salute from someone they disgust or jail or kill or ruin someone but they're totally disposable pieces of shit who needed every one of them in the game and the refs paid off and the board tilted 90` to take one real man, maybe. They'll never feel great. They'll have some stuff and some sick hobbies, like a homeless junkie does, that cost them their very souls. At best. At the very best.
I'm ok with this. I'd prefer the Republic redeemed but .... ok.
Just thoughts on the eve.
The problem is, the Texas case was not a serious piece of litigation. It was purely an opportunity for various states' legislators and reps to publicly support Trump. Texas literally tried to sue Pennsylvania for things that Texas also did. Not a single serious constitutional law expert whose analysis I read saw it as anything but political theater.
If the SCOTUS had opened that door, literally every state could have sued every other state for any law. Do you want blue states suing Texas over their gun laws? Because that's how you get shit like that.
Texas’ lawsuit raised some important constitutional questions. States like Pennsylvania and Michigan abruptly changed their election laws through the courts and not through the legislature as required by the constitution. These changes (along with outright fraud) affected the outcome of the election.
The union of states requires all 50 states to act in a matter consistent with the constitution. At the end of the day, the president is in charge of all 50 states, and the changes made in Pennsylvania can affect Texas.
But Texas also did the same thing - their Governor extended early voting. If SCOTUS had heard the argument, Pennsylvania could have sued Texas right back. And clearly, the idea that it violated the constitution isn't as concrete as you're presenting it here, since none of those legal challenges went anywhere.
I am of the personal opinion that Trump's legal team dropped the ball in basically every imaginable configuration - they should have been leading state-specific litigation focused around the fraud they say they have the evidence of, but they didn't. That doesn't mean I support that sort of interstate constitutional challenge that's rife with hypocrisy and on extremely shaky ground, legally speaking.
I have to agree. People wouldn't stop praising Rudy, and would shit on me whenever I doubted him, but the reality is that he dropped just about all the meat of his lawsuits whenever things started to turn south for him. I'm not even sure that he ever left fraud as one of the charges in any of his suits. Just election impropriety, which is not enough to throw out votes. After all, even proving the legitimacy of the election has been compromised is not enough to throw out votes because you don't know if the vulnerabilities were exploited until that's proven separately.