Categories
Uncategorized

The Supreme Court

 I of course don’t understand our system well enough to be able to say what is possible, and given that we are in extraordinary times, even what was previously impossible may have become possible.  No one in 1960 could have guessed we would be putting a senile crook we already KNOW has been taking bribes from Communists into the White House.  Or at least be very close to it.

I don’t think anyone would have guessed fraud on the scale being made obvious would ever happen, or that the media would be able to cover it up, or that people could be trained to ignore it.

Here is what I wonder: what CAN the Supreme Court do?  They are not really the place where you have a “trial”.  They are not the place where you present evidence.  They are the place where convoluted elements of the law receive definitive treatment. They tell the world what a word in a given statute should be understood to mean.

Here is a pathway, an idea, that makes sense to me.  It may be unrealistic to ask them to “declare” Georgia for Trump.  It may be unrealistic for them to render rulings on what ballots to keep and which to throw away, as in Pennsylvania.  But what would make sense is for them to declare Voter Fraud to be a violation of Equal Protection, and demand of lower courts that ALL claims of voter fraud receive in ALL cases evidentiary hearings from the lower and where needed the Appellate Courts.  

Rudy Guiliani and Jenna Ellis and the rest of them have amassed a HUGE stockpile of information.  But all the courts are saying “sorry, closed for business, go elsewhere.”  Then the Left is saying “Look, their lawsuits FAILED.  They must be without merit.”  I continue ask: where were they HEARD?  Nowhere, as far as I know.  Guiliani is presenting to Legislatures, which is good, but these are criminal actions which have not yet been investigated honestly by Federal or seemingly even local law enforcement, and where the large amount of evidence gathered in effect by Guiliani acting as a freelance and multi-jurisdictional prosecutor can’t get an honest hearing.

If the Supreme Court wants to punt on deciding which candidate or which ballots, that would be comprehensible legally.  But the POINT is that this IS the job of the lower courts, and THEY ARE NOT DOING IT.

A ruling from the Supreme Court dictating speed would help.

I would also comment that they COULD find that, in cases where fraud is sufficiently massive that it is impossible to say who actually won, that the Constitution would REQUIRE the State Legislatures to select the Electors, and/or to throw the issue to the House.

There’s a lot of stuff I don’t know, but what we need more than anything is legal instruction, issued by the highest court, that voter fraud matters, and that it cannot be shrugged off, ignored, or prolonged indefinitely because the people doing it control the law enforcement and courts that might stop them.

And it should seem obvious that fraud in, say, Philadelphia, matters to the whole nation.  When national representation is concerned, we are all affected by how they do things.  As I will continue to comment, absent Daly in Chicago, Nixon would have won in 1960.  One man, one city, but the entire election.  It was that important.

That is why I referenced the old saying “For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.” the other day.

There HAS to be a means for other States to exert some control on Philly and everywhere else.  It has to be a national effort because it is a national problem.  We need some sort of legal framework to do that, or it will get worse, and eventually completely invisible again, what with the censorship that is becoming a daily outrage.