« Steps You Can Take to Stop the Steal by Larry C Johnson | Main | "Joe at Christmas" by Basilisk »

18 December 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Do you have a citation for this story, or did it come to you by word of mouth to ear?


Colonel, you say:
" Roberts and the liberals made common cause to prevent certiori in this case arguing against Thomas and Alito. "
In fact this case had nothing to do with certiorari.
It was an "original jurisdiction" case filed by a state directly in the Supreme Court, as provided by
Article III, section 2, of the Constitution.
The Court held that Texas does not have standing to argue that other states' elections were deficient.
This was NOT a denial of certiorari.



"That these men, and our nation, are reduced to intimidation by thuggery makes me sad and afraid."

The take-home message is that not only does violence and its threat work, but that violence and its threat are the only things that work. The decision of our ruling elites, who are neither elite nor ours any longer, to push us down this path shows their complete unfitness to rule, their profound lack of legitimacy.

Arrogance beyond a certain level becomes indistinguishable from stupidity. They are counting on our lack of enthusiasm for a war. We didn't WANT a war on December 7th 1941 either, but we were attacked on our own soil and fought all the way to unconditional surrender of our enemies.


Roberts refusing to hear even the merits of the case, is IMO committing Treason, and criminal fraud. Criminal in that he is bound to protect our Constitution, and fraud in the fact that he is not doing his job that Mom and Pop America are paying him to do. Roberts could (should?) be tried for Treason, in his usurping the Constitution.

The rest of the Justice don't have to follow what Robert says, as he cannot dictate what they do. He cannot take away their birthdays as they have lifetime appointments, and they can form their own union of Justices and kick Roberts and any other weak-knees like Kavanaugh to the curb. The justices need to grow some backbone and tell Roberts that he's not their overseer, the Constitution is.



Thanks for the correction. That it was an original jurisdiction case makes it worse.



Word of mouth. I still know a few people. I have been told two versions. In one they were in the same room. In the other they were screaming at each others' screens.



oldman2222 points out that I was in error. This was an "original jurisdiction" case not a matter of certiori (appeal). "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." wiki

Kilo 4/11

@ scott s: "For the Texas case, it seems to come down to Texas doesn't like how the legislatures of PA and and the other states appoint their electors."

Your casual attempt to dismiss the Texas suit stinks. Got something against fair elections?

The Texas suit was against the use of the executive power (governor and sec. of state) to change the Pa. voting procedure, by, among other things, granting an extension to the time for vote counting ONLY for the mail-ins and by giving more lenient treatment to those votes by not verifying their signatures.

Moreover, the SC would not be "deciding" the election by throwing it back to the state legislature(s) - it would merely be putting the election back in the hands of the constitutionally correct authorities, who then would decide.

In fact, the Texas suit was an attempt to protect the votes of all Americans, and the SC failure to hear it was the death knell of whatever shred of legitimacy it had left.


Neal, Totally agree. I see there are no rebuttals to your points.
The conservative wing of the SC have built their careers on the 10th amendment.
If Republicans don't like it. Then repeal it.


IMHO it was the Tenth Amendment and NOT fear of mobs that led SCOTUS to deny hearing TX AG Ken Paxton's lawsuit. Justice Roberts used to work in a steel mill so I kinda doubt he is afraid of a whacko mob, whether that mob is leftie or the other end of the political spectrum. Only two justices disagreed with the ruling. Maybe Alito & Thomas were afraid of violence by the Proud Boys or Boogallo Boys or other right wing mobs?

As for screaming, it would have to be at each other's computer screens like the alternative version pf the story that Colonel Lang mentioned above. But even that is hard to believe, all of those justices forgot how to scream decades ago when they first became lower court judges. That fabrication was first put forth by convicted felon Hal Turner's website.


Scott s. And Neal, these are disengenuous arguments you’re making. Scott, Texas isn’t objecting to how the legislatures of PA and the other states appoint their electors. It’s objecting to the fact that the legislatures of those states were excluded or over ruled or prevented from making the rules of how the elections in those states should be elected. A right granted exclusively to them by the constitution. In other words, that authority was usurped in those states by the governors, attorneys general, and courts of those states. In other words, the elections in those states were unconstitutional.

Neal, Texas is clearly going to be affected or injured. As are all the other states that ran a constitutionally correct election. A non political example might be the NCAA. Rules and agreements are made among the collegiate sporting world. Don’t you think that all the schools would be affected in the overall outcome if some schools flouted recruiting rules and hired actual professional athletes to stock their teams, stacking the deck,, while the NCAA looked the other way and ignored their own rules? A school administration is free to hire any professional athletes if they want, but then they can’t compete in the NCAA.


Neal, you make this trite statement: “ The only arguable basis for the Supremes -- or any part of the federal government -- to get involved would be Article 4, section 4.” Which is a bit like saying “the only reason for the authorities to get involved is because Jeffrey Dammer butchered and ate his victims, which is against the law.” It is THE reason. No other reason is needed. It compels involvement.



Texas' objection was that the legislature of these states were usurped in their constitutional function.


Then their legislatures were usurped by themselves. At least here in Wisconsin,where all election laws were ratified by the gop legislature in 2011.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad