There is an old saying in the law of self defense: If you fail to act when you should you may be injured or killed. If you act when you should not you may be found guilty of a serious crime and go to prison.
This can be a metaphor for the current make-up of Supreme Court. If the court fails to act when it has before it a clear case of Constitutional questions, is may be criticized for dereliction of duty. After all, the justices each take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution requires, which may be a lot or a little or nothing at all. Which ever of those three apply to a particular case, the court has an obligation to give a coherent explanation for its action, or its refusal to act.
In 2020 the Supreme Court refused to hear any of the election cases that Texas and other states claimed were being conducted in a fraudulent manner. These were cases in which Texas alleged a complaint against five other states claiming those states were conducting elections in a manner prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution holds that only the state legislatures of each state can make rules for how elections in each state are held. The Democrats, in advance of the 2020 elections, persuaded various secretaries of state and election officials to changes several states’ election rules that had been adopted by state legislatures, as the Constitution requires. These changes were intentionally made to make it easier to commit fraud in the elections.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over suits by one or more states against one or more other states. Original jurisdiction means Texas had no place to go other than to the Supreme Court. Six justices ruled that Texas lacked Standing. In effect, the court was saying Texas had suffered no harm. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. They would have taken the case. The other six failed to act when they should have acted.
The dumbest lawyer in America will see how ridiculous it was for the Court to claim Texas had not or would not suffer any harm and there lacked standing. Having an election stolen does not grant standing? Texas voters having their votes nullified by fraud is not harmful to them?
Two excellent articles on this have been written by John Green at American Thinker : The Supreme Court has taken up residence in the Swamp and The Supreme Court’s day of reckoning is coming. I can’t recommend these masterly written articles enough. They deserve your attention.
The Supreme Court has similarly rejected and refused to hear several cases regarding election fraud since November 3, 2020. The Court seems to think it should not take these cases because Americans don’t want them to. That’s about as frivolous a cop out as one can imagine. John Green pointed out a Rasmussen poll that found 51% of Americans believe there was fraud in the 2020 election. An Ipsos poll found that 63% of Americans believe it is time to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices. In my younger days I would have disagreed with term limits for Supreme Court justices. Now I see the wisdom in it. However, I’d sure hate to lose Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Each one of them has more brain power than all the others put together.
John Green finds that the Court has three distinct voting blocs:
- The oath keepers — These are the justices that are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution even if it means they’ll have to endure attacks. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch make up this bloc.
- The jellyfish — These are the justices that lack the spine to face controversy. They’re more concerned about defending the court than the Constitution. Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh make up this bloc.
- The subversives — These are the justices that have been using penumbras and emanations to rewrite the constitution in pursuit of social engineering. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer make up this bloc.
I’d favor a fourth one that should include all nine of the justices: How about a bloc called the “rule of law.” Naw, other than the oath keepers there are not enough of them with any interest in something so silly as the rule of law.
It’s reported that John Roberts does the silly things he does in order to maintain respect for the Court. If that’s true, I think he’s accomplishing just the opposite. Hey Justice Roberts, if you really want to uphold the integrity of the court, why don’t you just stick to the rule of law!