Issues & Insights

See-Nothing, Do-Nothing Judiciary Unleashes Dred Scott 2020

Pexels

‘Republicans have lost more than 50 court cases” relating to election fraud and illegalities, parrots the traditional media ad infinitum and gleefully. CNN crows of “desperate appeals and baseless conspiracy theories.”

But the burgeoning legal body count is no indicator of legal incompetence, flight of fancy nor quixotic stubbornness. Rather, it’s a measure of the American judiciary’s historic failure at all levels to protect the integrity of the electoral process, defend the Constitution, and ultimately, perhaps, preserve the union.

“Do you think we’re stupid?” Trump legal team leader Rudy Giuliani queried plaintively as the vote heist unfolded.

No, Mr. Mayor. Your well-organized opposition doesn’t think you’re not stupid. But does think – nay, knows – you’rehelpless.

Helpless on short notice to expose and counter the near-perfect crime Democrats orchestrated over months of war-gaming and legal positioning.

Helpless against traditional media ranks closing around Joe Biden and outright taunting the president. (One national anchorman recently tossed off that The Donald “refuses to admit he has lost.” “Refuses” connoting pigheadedness, “admit” a deprecatory form of the more traditional “concede,” and “has lost” a conclusion the blow-dried Ron Burgundy-type was not yet in position to draw.)

Helpless against rules rigged outside legal and constitutional frameworks amid pandemic panic, some with acquiescence of spineless, brain-dead Republican officials.

But most of all, helpless in the face of the high legal mountain to climb.

That mountain consists, first of all, of the need for “clear evidence” of irregularities sufficient to overturn the result. In fact, the Trump team is hamstrung by mindless repetition of the talking point alleging “no evidence” at all of election fraud. 

Oh. You mean “no evidence” like thousands of pages of election worker affidavits? Like refusing bipartisan access to vote counting? Like tossed absentee envelopes? Like constitutionally impermissible variances in intrastate review standards?

Like the statistical impossibility and suspicious timing of near-simultaneous vote dumps across four states almost unanimously in favor of one candidate? Like video evidence appearing to show officials pulling out hidden ballots after dismissing observers?

Or even like the executive branch amendments of election laws, constitutionally required to be established only by state legislatures, and passed expressly to prevent the exact frauds that may have eventuated? 

You mean that kind of non-existent “evidence?”

Meanwhile, in the words of one prominent legal blog, there’s judicial “reluctance to wade into post-election litigation” on the part of the Supreme Court in particular – still institutionally burned by fierce leftist reaction to appropriate intervention in Bush v. Gore.

Yeah? Where, pray tell, was the Supremes’ “reluctance,” for example, to disenfranchise majorities affirming traditional marriage in 31 sovereign states?

“Reluctance” to baldly rewrite federal law creating a cause of action for transgender funeral home employees cross-dressing in the presence of grieving families?

Or “reluctance” to step in and recast a penalty as a “tax” to preserve an otherwise unconstitutional enactment?

Suddenly “reluctant” courts hide behind procedural dodges to avert their duty to ensure a credible and lawful electoral process. As if “laches” – mere delay in bringing a suit – overrides basic questions of constitutionality. And a state has no standing – “judicially cognizable interest” – in challenging unconstitutional actions, including potential violations of federal law, that negate the actual national presidential results to which their citizens’ votes contributed.

Not to mention another outrageous Catch 22: wrongdoings – no matter how egregious – that cannot be shown without further investigation to be large enough to change outcomes must be ignored. But if they are massive in extent, then relief shouldn’t be granted that “disenfranchises” so many voters – even if their “votes” are illegal or non-existent.

BTW, since when is a theft’s size a reason to excuse it? “Bernie Madoff stole $65 billion? That’s so much money it would be unfair to take it away from him.” C’mon, man. Here, we’re only talking about purloining the entire presidency.

It would have been little skin off various courts’ backs to allow suits to advance, facilitating discovery and deposition of officials involved in suspicious activity and potentially, even disproving charges of fraud, thereby instilling greater confidence in the result one way or another.

Instead, the Supreme Court’s two punts this week unleash Dred Scott 2020 (without the racial overtones). Like the original, they will inflame tensions and potentially, create further momentum toward America’s sundering.

And make no mistake, that momentum is growing. More commentators, even legends like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, bring it up daily. One anonymous pundit actually proffers an intriguing scenario, a red county-led separation, that would leave this correspondent on the wrong side of the divide – in a Republican state but one of America’s bluest local jurisdictions.

More important, Texas’ now-spurned lawsuit provides a potential stepping stone: 18 states are now on record alleging a stolen presidency. From there, it’s only a hop, skip and a jump to the Declaration of Dissolution previously suggested in this space.

The judiciary, most notably the high court, could have helped avert that outcome. Instead, in the words of a previous president, the justices could join scorned Roger Taney not just on the wrong side of the coming split, but on the wrong side of history.

Will You Help Us In The Fight For Free Speech?

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.

Share

Bob Maistros

Bob Maistros, a messaging and communications strategist and crisis specialist, is of counsel with Strategic Action Public Affairs, and was chief writer for the Reagan-Bush ’84 campaign, three U.S. Senators, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He can be reached at bob@rpmexecutive.com.

6 comments

  • KleptoKKKrazis are immensely pleased with their crimes. They are utterly manic at the proposition the, if they can get away with this, then how much more can they get away with?

  • In refusing to hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania et al Case, the SCOTUS has given the GREEN LIGHT to any and all states for violating the Constitutions of their own states, and the US Constitution.

    According to the SCOTUS claim that Texas “has no standing” to contest the violations of both their state’s constitutions and the US Constitution is going to have ramifications that we can only imagine.

    If it’s not the “business” of a given state, to contest violations of the US Constitution by another state, then why should any state feel bound to the US Constitution? SCOTUS has indicated that any state can “do what they please,” and it’s NOBODY’S business outside of the boundaries of that state!

    There will be consequences. There are ALWAYS consequences when the SCOTUS makes a ridiculous call. And this one was worthy of scorn and ridicule.

    Apparently, the SCOTUS has greenlighted SECESSION. If say California wants to secede from the Union, I guess that Texas has “no standing” to contest such an unconstitutional act! Our nation will rue the day, when the guilty fools on the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case. But then, maybe now CALIFORNIA can secede from the Union! Pennsylvania will have “no standing” if they sue to stop California from seceding!

    I’d be all for that! Ridding our nation from the “Golden State” now turned to MANURE!

  • No perhaps about it , WE THE PEOPLE have far too many elected and appointed Mis-Representatives / officials / Judicials that have taken an OATH OF OFFICE . That OATH appears to mean NOTHING these days . Why are they so willing to betray / ignore that OATH to defend our Constitution and the BEST INTERESTS of WE THE PEOPLE ?
    EXAMPLE : When SCOTUS , via the CONSTITUTION , is the sole designated source to ajudicate disagreements among / between states , they shirk their duty and dismiss their obligation of OATH by declaring ” No Standing ” ! ! WE MUST NOT IGNORE , BUT RISE TO OUR OWN DEFENSE .
    This is just such an effort . We have brains . . . USE THEM !

  • Let’s pretend, as kids say, that the shoe were on the other foot. Kind of like in 2000, when Algore went 37 days before conceding the election to Bush. Hillary still believe she won. Stacy Abrams believes she is Georgia’s governor. You mean THAT kind of not facing reality? The CNN’s of the World are just propaganda machines working with/for the progressives. here and abroad. There is no more news, per se, on ABCCBSNBCPBSNPRPMS-NBCCNNWASHCOMPOSTNYSLIMESLASLIMES.

  • Producer states, prior to outright secession need to create their own pain on those misbehaving states. Start restricting products and diverting resources to states that uphold the Constitution. Require Federal Tax payments to be processed by the State, held in escrow until the State is guaranteed by the Fed that moneys are spent in ways that are approved by the State. Start rejecting or “discouraging” the migration of out of state people (i.e. urban liberals) to their state via “relocation fees” or background checks. It is every state for themselves now, since no state “has standing” to interfere in the operation of another state.

    Think this can’t be done? It can and is being done. NY has already put up checkpoints to restrict travel from out-of-state citizens due to “COVID-19”. Northeastern Governors all formed a pact to allow free travel between the states, but restrict travel from other states. This is already happening, Red states are just behind the curve.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Will you help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left? Issues & Insights is published by a team of volunteers who believe in free speech and in quality journalism. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on the Tip Jar above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!

Subscribe to Issues & Insights via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to I&I and you can receive notifications of new articles in your email. It’s simple, and free.

Join 4,935 other subscribers

%d bloggers like this: