The US Supreme Court ignored its Constitutional duty to resolve a genuine and substantial argument among states when they refused to even hear Texas v Pennsylvania that was brought properly as an original jurisdiction case to the High Court. After that cowardice decision by Chief Justice John Roberts who feared riots by Joe Biden’s supporters, the Court has been the recipient of some very intense criticisms for avoiding the most important inter-state Constitutional case brought before the Court since maybe ever.
The Supreme Court did, however, identify how another challenge could be brought to it successfully by a different plaintiff. And you are included, according to a new memo.
The case that the Court refused to hear was brought by the state of Texas who sued four key battleground states, that intentionally violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, otherwise known as the Presidential Electors Clause, the Article II section that establishes the requirements for running a presidential election. The Founding Fathers who framed the Constitution gave the sole power over election laws to each state’s elected Legislature to determine the way Presidential Electors would be appointed. Thanks to the Framers’ ingenious way of writing the Constitution for elections, we now know that states that allowed Executive branch and Judicial branch officials to change election laws has lead to massive election fraud, specifically in the four states Texas sued. It shows that individual people outside the body of the state legislatures can be corrupted by money to be bought and paid for to change the outcome of an election to whoever the highest bidder wants to win. It’s as unamerican as it gets.
By refusing to hear the case claiming Texas did not have what is referred to as “standing,” all Justices who are part of the majority ruling committed a wrong against the state of Texas and the 17 states that supported Texas’ lawsuit, the People of the United States, the President, and the United States in so much as rendering the US Constitution moot.
Courts have a duty to explain to the interested parties how they came to their rulings, so that everyone can understand if the decisions are made by learned reason via judicial powers that the American people can trust and not merely because of political ideologies or a fear of having riots break out.
In Roberts’ cowardice act of denying Texas v Pennsylvania over a fear of riots, the concurring justices felt all they were obligated to do was to state that Texas had a “lack of standing” in the one sentence they wrote as a justification for the abomination they just handed over to 75 million Americas. They wrote, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” I call bullschtein, because ruling on a case of this size and importance with a one-sentence explanation of “lack of standing” is just unacceptable.
Today, the Supreme Court docket is filled with cases they choose to hear. A little known fact is that the Constitution even has a remedy for that. It’s just that the Democrats, during their forty-year reign between 1954 and 1994 gave up this Constitutional power and authority to the courts because they were cowards who wanted to get reelected while federal judges served for life.
So, what am I talking about? Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives power to the Congress to determine what types of cases the courts, including the US Supreme Court, may and may not hear. In other words, if Congress decides it does not want the courts to hear cases on abortion rights, then they could vote on that, and the courts, by the very Constitution they swear to uphold and protect, have to abide.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [emphasis added]
So, the Congress, legitimately, could vote on a rule that the Supreme Court must hear cases on election fraud during the 2020 election. The only problem here is that Nancy Pelosi., who runs the House of Representatives at the moment, has absolutely no desire whatsoever to do the right thing, because the election fraud favored her party, the Democratic Party. This is just something the Republicans should keep in mind when they take back both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 2022.
If there is one bright spot in how horribly the Roberts Court handled the Texas case it is that it caused a great deal of people to study their lame excuse of a “lack of standing” by Texas to use as an excuse to avoid hearing the case. That’s because the word “standing” does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution, neither is there any other word nor term to indicate that the idea of “standing” is a prerequisite that could be used by cowards in long black robes to avoid doing their Constitutional duties.
There is evidence that shows this concept of standing began during FDR’s reign where big-government justices used the term to protect New Deal legislation that prior to that had been shot down as unconstitutional, rightly so. The concept was also used to protect the administrative state, or deep state, from challenges by the American people and their elected representatives.
So, the Roberts Court claimed that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election,” however, many believe they just made that up to use the standby excuse of lack of standing to avoid having to do their job. This is so, because the truth of the matter is that Texas absolutely did make the argument to show standing, it’s just that Roberts was terrified of riots happening if the Court did hear the case and had to rule based on the Constitution, because we all know that Texas’ argument is right.
When the state of Pennsylvania violated their legislature’s Connotationally-authorized power in the Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption that could corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania. After hearing all of the evidence of massive election fraud by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Kathy Boockvar, the Secretary of State, both branches of government changing election laws without the authority to do so, they created standing for Texas. How? In Federalist 68, Hamilton explained why the Framers created the Electoral College in the first place. He guaranteed the People that in the new American system, corruption and the influence of parties he called factions are avoided by the temporary limited duty of the Electors, the fact that federal office holders are disqualified to serve as Electors, and the large number of Electors who meet in separate states at the same time.
During the 2020 election, changes to election laws in Pennsylvania were made by judges, Executive branch office holders and election officials that would never have been done by the state’s Legislature.
Here’s where Texas standing comes in. If the election process by which presidential Electors are appointed is totally corrupted by a number of states, even a small number like Pennsylvania
If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by fixing the system in favor of one candidate (Joe Biden), by illegally changing election laws, it becomes completely irrelevant who the People of Texas supported. The rogue states rendered the People of Texas’ choice to win the presidency as worthless, even though the state of Texas followed the law. Texas was harmed by what the four battleground states did, and that gives them standing.
In other words, what happened in those four states didn’t just affect what happens in those four states, rather, what happened in those four states affects every other state, because the Electors from every state act together to select the next President of the United States.
The answer to the Texas case being thrown out due to a lack of standing can be remedied by the United States of America bringing a case and there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court must hear that case and decide it favorably, because this election is too important to end it based on fear and political ideology. We either have a Constitutional republic or we do not.
While both sides of the aisle want their guy to win, I can’t fathom the Supreme Court taking the position that the United States of America has no business enforcing the process established by the US Constitution on how we choose to select the president, the single person who represents 100% of the American people.
Git er done, Mr. Trump. 74 million Americans are waiting.