Topic category: Corruption in Government
Supreme Stupidity
The Supreme Court displays an abysmal lack of understanding of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
Article III of the United States Constitution defines the Judicial Power of the United States.
Article III, Section 1 states: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, ..."
Article III, Section 2 clearly states (bold emphasis added):
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
That's a pretty clear statement. The State of Texas, joined by at least seventeen other states, recognizes that the unconstitutional actions taken by partisan Democrats in four key cities of four key states has defrauded the citizens of the United States of a legitimate electoral college process by allowing blatant corruption and criminality during ballot counting in the 2020 election of a President. If that isn't clear "standing" under the written word of Article III, Section 2, then nothing has standing under Section 2.
How else would any sane, rational person describe the lawsuit between Texas and four other states if not as a controversy "between two or more states"? On what possible basis can a controversy between states not be considered sufficient "standing" under Section 2?
Yet the Supreme Court, in its apparent supreme stupidity, made this decision on Friday, December 11, 2020, a decision that will go down in history as the most monumentally flawed action ever undertaken by the U.S. Supreme Court:
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
As Justice Thomas dissented: "we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction". That statement is spot-on. The Court is obligated to hear the case by the clear mandate of Section 2. The decision to erroneously claim lack of standing is a clear abrogation of the sworn oath of office taken by each of the Justices. The Court does not have an option to simply ignore their clear written instructions given in our Constitution.
Lack of standing? The controversy arises because four states have not performed their legitimate duties to assure an uncorrupted, fraud-free presidential election, an inaction that affects every citizen of this country, not just those in the states where legislators sit idly by while their laws are brazenly violated with impunity. Every citizen in this country has "standing" to take action against such a travesty of the laws. What kind of warped thinking could possibly contend that Texas has no standing to protect the legal, uncorrupted vote of its citizens from being overwhelmed by the corruption in just four urban areas controlled by partisan Democrats in four states?
It is bad enough that four state legislatures didn't have the courage to fix their own messes by the simple act of calling a special session to rescind the fraudulent election results. But for our Supreme Court, the court of last resort, to deny their own sworn obligation is almost beyond belief. Their inaction rewards high treason against this nation. Fraud will become the standard of the future when fraudsters get away with what they've done and they do it brazenly and with impunity.
No amount of legal mind-twisting and turning can overturn the clear written word of our Constitution, a document that was written more than 200 years ago in such a manner that every citizen should be able to clearly understand it. Our Constitution does not consume volumes of details covering virtually every aspect of life, as does the European Union constitution. The European Union consitution should come with a clear warning on its cover: "Warning, any attempt to read this document could result in suicide!"
Our Supreme Court has condemned this country to at least four years of living hell because it would not lift a finger to stop brazen, blatant, pre-planned, treasonous actions designed to turn key "swing" states that were going heavily to President Trump by wantonly violating their state legislatures' election prescriptions in the early hours of November 4. Everyone knows this is what happened. One would have to be a delusional partisan to be blind to the fraud. The numbers do not lie. They are clear and evident. Thousands of witnesses have testified to the criminal acts that took place.
If there were ever a time when the Supreme Court recognized a case so critical to the preservation of our Constitutional Republic, this would be the time. Evidently, partisans aren't the only people suffering from mental myopia when it comes to defending our Constitutional Republic.
Yet both the involved state legislatures and our Supreme Court seem to believe it is perfectly fine that this travesty should move forward without any of the legitimate actions at their disposal to stop the steal of a presidential election.
Those state legislators and the Supreme Court justices need to be forewarned that the massive support President Trump had legitimately received happens to form the backbone of this country. Their corrupt inaction will not be forgotten when the day of reckoning comes. Those charged with the responsibility to take lawful civil action necessary to prevent this criminally corrupt election coup d'état will be held accountable for their inaction by the people and in the true historic account of this travesty.
The 2020 fraudulent election and those aiding and abetting the fraud (legislators in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and seven Supreme Court justices) will be infamously remembered when the history of the fall of The Constitutional Republic of the United States of America is written.
Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)
Biography - Bob Webster
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.