Will the Supreme Court’s Conservatives Extinct Themselves?

Will the Supreme Court’s Conservatives Extinct Themselves? by Robert Gore for Straight Line Logic

Trump, or extinction by irrelevance?

Update: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Texas suit late Friday afternoon.

The state of Texas has filed suit against four states where the presidential election results are in dispute: Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction for suits between states (Article III, Section 2). The court ordered the four states to submit their responses yesterday. A number of states have filed amicus, or friend of the court, briefs both in support of and in opposition to Texas.

Suppose the court either refuses to take the case or it rules against Texas. Suppose also that the Democrats win the two contested Georgia Senate races January 5. With the apparent cheating demonstrated in the presidential election and Georgia’s RINO governor and secretary of state, nobody should assume the runoffs will be fair or that challenges to an unfair election will have any chance of success.

Biden would be president and Democrats would control the House of Representatives and the Senate (it would be 50-50, but vice president Harris would break ties). They could and probably would carry out their plans to expand the Supreme Court and “pack” it with a unstoppable liberal majority. In either refusing to hear the Texas suit or accepting the suit but ruling against Texas, the Supreme Court’s five conservative justices will have contributed to their own demises as consequential jurists—collective judicial suicide.

On the other hand, the court could take the case and rule in favor of Texas. It helps that Texas has a strong legal case. Article I, Section 4 states: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be proscribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress at any time may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except to the Places of chusing Senators. This clause apparently has been extended to presidential elections, which are held concurrently with Congressional elections.

What this means is the state legislatures have exclusive control of how elections for senators, representatives, and the president are held within their state. Robert Madsen at AmericanThinker.com has done a good job of summarizing how the four states violated the procedures their legislatures enacted in those states’ own election laws (“A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit,” December 10, 2020), and how those violations could have changed the outcome. Many of the violations are changes in procedures implemented before the election by state secretary of states or other officials. Covid-19 has been the usual rationale. Some of the violations stem from the alleged vote counting shenanigans on the night of November 3 and the morning of November 4.

Continue Reading / Straight Line Logic >>>

 

Sharing is caring!

Robert Gore

Robert Gore was born in 1958 in Livermore, California. He grew up in Los Alamos, New Mexico, where both his parents worked for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. His undergraduate education was at UCLA. He graduated in 1980 summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a double major in economics and political science. He completed the JD/MBA program at UC Berkeley in 1984. He held part-time jobs throughout undergraduate and graduate school. He passed the bar exam and is an inactive member of the California Bar Association. Mr. Gore’s career in finance began in 1984 with a bank in San Francisco, trading municipal bonds. In 1985, he went to a Wall Street firm’s west coast municipal bond office in Los Angeles as a bond trader. He developed its block and institutional sales capabilities and after four years was promoted to manager of the region.