I would seriously consider resigning tomorrow. Tell the Trump Threesome to enjoy their careers as a permanent minority. Really, what's the point?
this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Friday, December 11, 2020
Serious Question: If You Were Alito Or Thomas, What Would You Do?
Posted by mark wauck at 7:04 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Rumor has had Thomas considering retirement for some time. Not sure what I would advise him if asked.ReplyDelete
For Alito, "I told you so" will be a small comfort in a few months.
The time of choosing approaches for all of us.
They should consider where they can do the most good at this point.Delete
I'm with you, Mark.ReplyDelete
I really wonder if those marchers tomorrow in Washington, can send a powerful message to the Supreme Court that they have failed the nation miserably. What of the future? When there is no justice, there will soon be no respect for the laws of the land.ReplyDelete
No desire whatsoever to see harm to other humans. So, not sure what form it would come in, but we need a catalyzing moment. And hanging out with red hats for a couple hours tomorrow is not Fort Sumter. But the timing is prescient.Delete
I was evaluating flying out a couple weeks back, but now I do not envy those who did and will have to make a choice about how they show up tomorrow. I will not judge whatever they decide to do.
Without justice, there are no laws of the land.Delete
I'm with you all the way.ReplyDelete
Mark: the decision was 9-0 that TX did not have standing. Alito and Thomas would have exercised jurisdiction and held that TX did not have any standing. They both said they would not have granted TX any relief. So there is no real reason for them to be upset with the Trump 3.ReplyDelete
I’m waiting for Monday’s Order List. There is still the cert. pet. pending on the PA Supreme Court case. On Monday,, the list of cert. denials will be published. If the PA case is not on it, then we have to ask why it is being kept alive (and we have some hope). If it is on the denial list (at this point I suspect it will be), I suspect there will also be a dissent. Let’s see if there are 2 Trump justices on the dissent from denial of Cert before we condemn all of them. My money is on Gorsuch as the weak link. Andy S.
"Alito and Thomas would have exercised jurisdiction, and held that TX did not have any standing."Delete
They both said they would not have granted TX any relief."
Rudy on Hannity just said, that they would not have granted TX any **immediate** relief, and that he was OK w/ that, as long as they were looking at the merits of the evidence.
Thanks for that clarification. I should have read the order more closely.Delete
Nany, I think Rudy was spinning. Alito’s statement was not limited to “immediate” relief. Andy S.Delete
Maybe, and just maybe, the Court is worried about the Court’s role in our system. Maybe it is looking at January 5th and wants to forestall Court packing, expansion to 15 etc. As much as the law breaking and evidence of fraud and other impropriety bothers me, turning the Court into a political institution dominated by the blue states is frighteningDelete
I think this was an inevitable outcome of the situation.ReplyDelete
Honestly, when was the last time anyone saw our government roll up it's sleeves and say...
This may hurt but it's the right thing to do.
If you give them 2 choices and one is right with the other being completely horrendous they will just choose the worse and find a way to profit off of the outcome.
This is what governments become over time, it's the natural progression of it. Once people have had enough (they are not there yet) we'll change it. (Again)
Don't know where I saw it recently but cannot claim its mine:::Delete
IT IS ILLOGICAL TO EXPECT A JUST OUTCOME FROM A CORRUPT SYSTEM.
I've been involved in sports my entire life (7 decades, sigh) and I've always hated to win or lose on a "technicality". I remember coaching my kid's youth soccer team a while back and we were the home team - the league's best team was late and I could have claimed victory, but I knew traffic was bad, so we waited. Eventually they showed up and kicked our butts, but it was worth it because the W on our schedule wouldn't have meant much if we didn't play the game...but perhaps that's just me.ReplyDelete
So now here we are with a decision based upon obscure legalese that most Americans won't understand (not that I do, either, but I am familiar with the concept). Why not accept the case, hear the arguments, then issue a stinging rebuke of our side in order to put this legal avenue to rest for ever? At least, we would have had our day in court, so to speak, but this stupidity and avoidance of duty leaves a bitter taste. Shakespeare supposedly wrote that the law is an ass and who I am to disagree with the Bard?
That being said, I am NEVER giving up...I will heed the words of Sir Winston and fight on wherever the battle may be fought. I fervently pray that Donald Trump will set up his own PAC and every time I receive a request for funds from a RINO, I will send the money to the Donald and tell the RINO to go get the funds from the Very Stable Genius.
In honor of the deal with Morocco, Trump should rename Mar-a-Lago...wait for it...wait for it...Casa Blanca.Delete
I am not surprised that SCOTUS punted. Here is the problem as I see it, Mark- the Republicans have a majority in both houses of the following states: GA, AZ, MI, PA, WI. The legislatures here all could have acted by this point in time if they had any courage or brains at all. The Republicans still believe they are going to hold the Senate, but they are completely wrong- having punted on this issue of absentee vote fraud, the Democrats are now completely free to stuff the ballots in the two Georgia runoffs, too, and given the behavior of the Georgia Republican Party, they might not even have to cheat to win at this point.ReplyDelete
It was never like the legislatures needed to actually send their own slates- all they had to do was to order signature verification of all the absentee ballots holding the threat of a second slate as the hammer. They haven't done so, and I don't think they are going to either at this point. It is over- it will be President Kamala Harris in short order.
I'm on board with all of that. There's plenty of ignominy to go around. Only Trump has behaved like the winner that he is.Delete
And, Mitch assured us, that he was giving us conservative judges.Delete
I had sorta feared, that he'd end up giving us only wet noodles.
I'd consider first asking DJT, if he's got any more moves to play, e.g. applying provisions of the Insurrection Act.ReplyDelete
Agree. Trump isn't finished with these lawless thugs. He knows that half the nation stands with him in light of the massive fraud used to steal an election no matter what action he takes. How far will he go? We shall see...Delete
The question is, Who's going with him?Delete
I will follow him to hell in this, he has earned my trust while the establishment he wages war against has earned my scorn.Delete
As commented on previously, there have been pieces being moved on the chess board. How much more will be revealed by Trump and his surrogates that show the massive fraud and foreign influence that demand action - but not by a neutered judiciary? We shall see. What do we have to lose? We are living in the most interesting and desperate times of the nation's history since the Civil War.Delete
"Who's going with him?"Delete
Obviously not Barr.
I'll guess that, once those in the know could guess, that Barr was going to stay in tall grass, they could figure that DJT would be hanging out to dry.
IMO it is no longer DJT's decision to take it to that step. It is ours. If he doesn't have any more political or legal moves, he should let the people decide if they will consent to be governed or not.Delete
Who's going with him? So far, as far as the initial indications show, at least the Special Forces command and airlift, DoD, and DIA. If the President pulls the trigger on the Insurrection Act, will the military split? If not, if all follow Trump's orders, then we will get whiplash by how fast the sleazy Republicans will jump on the bandwagon.
I think they consoled themselves with the thought that they can serve as a backstop on particular issues and so keep the country together. In my view, they have seriously miscalculated.ReplyDelete
Thomas and Alito should stay on and fight. Maybe the wobbly three can stand for something. They have much to learn.
PA was supposed to sequester the absentee ballot & didn't do that in violation of their agreement with Alito.ReplyDelete
Does anybody else find it ironic we are posting in a forum full of lawyers and people who STILL speak, act and (likely) behave as if the Constitution and the law actually matters?
It doesn't and they don't: its gloves off now.
There are no rules, there are no laws, so burn the place to the ground, and take as many Marxists,
Democray Pols & RINOS with you as you can.
The Left has absolutely no idea what is about to happen.
Yes, Dave, that's what we're up against. I really don't see how the tyranny of stolen elections, Wuhan Flu lockdowns, and economic warfare is not as much a justification for revolt as those found in the Declaration of Independence.Delete
The idea has merit.ReplyDelete
The founders designed layers of safeguards, but in the end institutions by themselves cannot save us.
This would have the virtue of speeding things up. I'm sure Harris' picks would be gentle with the constitution.
That's what I mean. Why pretend? If We The People decide we deserve and want better than this Election Hoax, it'll happen and it won't matter who's on the SCOTUS. Otherwise ...Delete
I don't have that type of faith in conservatives or republicans we simply can not and do not fight back.Delete
We have a serious issue with being the best armed but best behaved, polite and well mannered opposition you could ever ask for.
Jobs, mortgages, car payments all come WAY before liberty and justice. Were very very selfish like that.
If the court had decided the opposite today half of the major cities would be in fire by 12am. We however will get up and do our thing tomorrow, most will go to church on Sunday and we'll be back at work on Monday morning.
You can not deny that angry emails vs absolute mayhem plays a huge part in deciding these things.
"angry emails vs absolute mayhem plays a huge part in deciding these things."Delete
Question is, will such responses as General Strike, secession etc., come into play?
Most Leftist snowflakes depend on Deplorables to do the real "dirty work".
What draconian means will the DS deploy, to crush General Strikes, secession mov'ts etc.?
I really don't know what to affirm or deny. Certainly there are those who want to destroy this nation. But IMO most people - those we call the establishment and similar terms - think 'a bruise here, a cut there, but all will be well in the end.' They don't believe America can fall as a result of their actions. The expression 'death by a thousand cuts' is lost on them.Delete
There is truth in what you say, conservatives will go back to paying their mortgages. But this 'election' has sent a jolt through the electorate. We may still require some more jolts from president Harris to effect real change, but it's coming.
Agree with all except the going to church comment. Most governors in the blue states won't let you go to church on Sunday. What Const....you know, the thing...!Delete
Devilman I completely agree with you, and certainly have to believe that this played at least some role in the SC decision: they have gambled that the path of least chaos is to relent to the fascists.Delete
Up to this point as a precedent they are not wrong, and I seriously question whether all the passive aggressive wink nods to 2A for years, and especially these last few months, will amount to anything at all. The 9 justices may be weak Americans reflective of the rest of our self-indulgent society, but they are not fools.
We've been very adamant about the KEEP part. But we never even bother with the BEAR part.
If we will not exercise the rights given to us by our creator, we definitely do not deserve them and they are null and void. All our tough words and strong emails and dancing around at rallies to YMCA are the same as our consent.
The history of the succession movements in our country are not very promising. Texas (if I am not mistaken) has had over 100 various attempts at it and all except the civil war failed.
For most states it's a serious economic issue, their land locked and without a TX, MS, FL, NC, SC etc they have zero chance of survival.
I think if you could pull them together you would easily wreck the costal blue states when it comes to gas, oil, food and cross country freight.
You really have to spend some serious time thinking about logistics and natural resources, when considered it's sobering what the heartland could take away nationally. (Said someone I know)
Then there's the inevitable war that would become of it... Keep in mind the looser looses all at that point because every resource, business or industry would be sliced up and pases out to the winners (reconsolidation, lessons of the first civil war).
General strikes would be a complete waste of time. Strikes are settled by the courts and we're seeing how that goes. Many red states are "right to work" states meaning a judge would just replace you.
I think a little differently about the establishment and america falling. I believe they are driving it off of a cliff and doing so very purposefully.
We're worth far more broken into pieces and resold than we are in one piece and unmarketable.
I also contend we have had bigger jolts, this is just a generational curb stomping. The bar of legal expectation has been lowered and the next generation will cling to the new standard that we're cussing until their generational butt kicking occurs.
Truth be told I am a life long atheist, but I would give my life to protect your liberty to worship when, where and how as you see fit.
I can personally attest to what happens if you simply even imply that you have the right to "bear" anything except your butt. By speaking from a calm, educated, well thought out and completely nonviolent point of view you will net yourself a few dozen mentions in more 302s and other interoffice memorandums than you can count.
Thanks to the SPLC we see the over played "right wing terrorist" or "right wing militants" or "right wing christian extremist" angle happen all of the time. It's a method of intimidation and a great excuse to harass the snot out of anyone whom may be a little too independent for their comfort.
I contend that if they took the 2A away tomorrow 95% would completely hand them over without much more than a curse word or two. 2% would figure out the hard way why you can't bury a gun in the dirt and the other 3% of us would die in vein.
Most will tell you "their ready" and follow that up with "When they come down MY street I'm gonna...." 🙄
That's never going to happen that way so it's incredible stupid to say. It's also not how you "fight back". It's how you selfishly plan of defending your own personal little world, not liberty, the constitution or your country. It's very cowardly!
I'll add another thing that's completely and utterly useless. Boycotting! Which is something conservatives do that remind me of dancing to the YMCA. We've graciously boycotted ourselves out of just about every major sport, major media, healthcare and dozens of other things thinking were somehow hurting an industry that's already said, "we don't need your money". So we end up just give up ground day after day, subject after subject.
Sorry... Tough love for conservatives from me right now. I'm on a rant but I'm a little annoyed with my fellow countrymen at the moment. Conservatives have to stop expecting (demanding) someone else to fix their problems (FBI, DoJ, military, SCOTUS, lawyers, etc) and take personal responsibility, pick up a shovel and start digging out of this already. 👍
Very sobering stuff devilman. Where is the rest of it? The part where you explain the shovel and digging? (Unless you were simply referring to our own mass graves?)Delete
"General strikes would be a complete waste of time. Strikes are settled by the courts and we're seeing how that goes....", etc.
This seems to assume, that virtually all cops & DS personnel will toe orders (from the Leftist brass of the DS), to enforce judicial rulings, e.g vs. General strikes.
I dare not try, to guess the accuracy of that assumption.
"I dare not try, to guess the accuracy of that assumption."
I always assume the institutions are going to do what is in the better interest of the institution(s). It behoves their own survival so the continuity by the path of least resistance will almost always be followed.
I do completely admit I am playing to both sides of the fiddle at times while I am trying to sort out what "we the people" can actually do rather than being a complete hypocrite and complaining about everyone doing nothing.
I think the answer falls to the states, that is after all the basis of being a republic.
Yeah, institutions are going to do what is in the better interest of the institution(s), but indivs w/in institutions have different interests, than do the brass of the institution(s).Delete
When cops come to distrust the brass, the phrase of choice becomes "going/ staying fetal".
When I wrote above, "Question is, will such responses as General Strike, secession etc., come into play? Most Leftist snowflakes depend on Deplorables to do the real "dirty work", my drift was that, while the Lefty brass may indeed be able to assume that, no matter what, *their* creature comforts will always get priority (e.g. from their well-paid pvt. security), the Lefty grass-roots may end-up being shocked, when the cops take their sweet time getting to "101 Special Snowflake Dr."
If the aggrieved/impacted states don't have standing, who does? Does the FEC have standing? Is the court leaving the entire matter to state courts and legislatures? Do they think it is a law enforcement issue? Are they taking the position that elections aren't a federal issue? Very confusing.ReplyDelete
The subtext of this decision is that the state legislatures in the offending states can act, still. Why haven't they?Delete
Let me take a stab at that: Because they're controlled by Republicans?Delete
However, the fecklessness of those other legislatures should mean that the other states are left without a remedy. They suffered a real harm because the votes of their citizens--and therefore their electoral slates--were devalued.Delete
"Let me take a stab at that: Because they're controlled by Republicans?"
Amen!!! Comment of the week award!!!
Yes, the whole idea of the Constitution was a pact between states to yield some of their rights to a central govt conditioned upon some very essential safeguards guaranteed by the bill of rights etc. What we have in 2020, seemingly ratified by the SC, is a racket where certain state governors can collude to throw the federal election to their preferred candidate. This nullifies the basic bargain of our republic. If this is OK then the Red States may as well rewrite the laws so that each elector they send to Congress on January 6th counts double. Anything goes now apparently.
A large donation in kind from the SCOTUS to the Texas secession movement, thank you very much.ReplyDelete
Over 200 years of the Supreme Court granting and hearing state v state complaints finally torn apart. Not a new thing, but a relatively recent phenomenon of which even Roberts not long ago objected to.ReplyDelete
This denial is completely due to the political nature of the complaint.
Trump has done what I wanted, fight from the start to the end. Yes, I think this is really the end ... for now.
Mark, what is your take on Andy S. saying that the vote was really 9-0, in that neither Thomas nor Alito felt Texas had standing. That notwithstanding, a court that found a way, peering into the penumbra, to find a right to abortion and to actually legislate from the bench to uphold the ACA should not have punted on procedural grounds when the state of the union is in play.ReplyDelete
Andy S. was wrong, and I was at fault for accepting his erroneous explanation. aNanyMouse set me straight by quoting Rudy's correct interpretation. The ruling wasn't 9-0--and in fact Thomas stated that he dissented.Delete
The ruling was that Texas had no standing to sue. Alito and Thomas stated that they would have granted leave to file the complaint--IOW, the said, as they had maintained previously, that Texas DID have standing. That means they would have allowed Texas to present evidence--and of course, as was proper, they withheld judgment as to how they would have ruled after hearing the evidence.
I don’t think I’m wrong. Alito and Thomas made a “statement” but did not use the word “dissent.” That’s not the way a dissent normally reads. (In fairness, they also don”t say “concur,” leaving the statement vague,) But, the actual quote is, “ 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.”. That is NOT a statement that TX has standing.Delete
I think they are effectively saying, “our rule that we have discretion to not hear a case if a state files it is wrong. So we would grant TX’s motion because we must. But, having done so, we would not grant TX relief because it has no standing.”
In other words, If TX were to file a. case tomorrow seeking a declaration that the boundary between WV and VA is drawn incorrectly, Alito and Thomas would grant a motion to allow it to file that case but not grant “other relief.” Because they must allow TX to file, but it has no standing.
Mark, I don’t think I’m wrong. Neither does Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy: “Justices Alito and Thomas differ with the majority only on the issue of whether the Court has the power to deny leave to file a complaint in an ‘original jurisdiction’ case where one state is suing another.” https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/11/thoughts-on-the-supreme-courts-unanimous-rejection-of-the-texas-election-lawsuit/ (Delete
Jonathan Adler at that site also agrees: “So while the vote on Texas' Motion for Leave was technically 7-2 on this basis, the Court was 9-0 in rejecting AG Paxton's attempt to get any sort of actual relief, such as an injunction preventing states from appointing presidential electors. Not a single justice was willing to express any sympathy for any aspect of Texas's legal claims.” https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/11/supreme-court-unanimously-denies-texas-emergency-relief-refuses-to-grant-motion-for-leave-to-file/
Alito and Thomas specifically stated that they would not grant TX “other relief.” They did not term their statement a “dissent.” Since the order specifically says that TX does not have standing, if they had thought it had standing, you would expect them to state that they dissent from that statement. (Admittedly, the statement is odd, because it also is not termed a concurrence.) The only difference between Alito and Thomas and the other seven is that the two would have said, “TX, you don’t need our permission to file suit. Case dismissed for lack of standing” whereas the seven said, “you don’t have standing, so we aren’t giving you permission to file the case.”
There is a long-standing principal that the doors of a courthouse are open to all and Alito and Thomas are trying to vindicate that. That principal doesn’t mean that a litigant doesn’t get pushed out the same door shortly after entering through it. That principal is so strong that even when you have serial pro se prisoner litigants, there have to be special findings made by the court before it can require the prisoner to get permission to file a new lawsuit. Thus, if I want to file a suit challenging the election, I can go to a US District Court and file that suit without getting permission from the district court to file. Once I file that suit, I’ll be thrown out for lack of standing.
Let’s put it back in the context of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. As part of that jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will hear boundary disputes between states. So if WV wants to sue VA over a boundary dispute, Alito and Thomas say that WV does not need permission to get into court on that claim. They would also say that TX doesn’t need permission to file a suit to resolve that very same boundary dispute. But, they would promptly dismiss TX’s suit because it has no standing in a WV-VA boundary dispute.
Sorry for the double post. When I didn't see the one I put up last night, I assumed that blogspot ate it. Andy S.Delete
Given the understandable confusion over what Alito (and Thomas) were trying to say, I think they owe(d) us a clear explanation.Delete
This is too important to leave to tea-leaf reading.
Yeah, Cass, their slithering around, and avoiding expression of a quite clear position, is very suspect, worthy of bureaucratese, not jurisprudence.Delete
It shouldn't have been left to Rudy, to try to clarify judges words.
Yesterday, on another thread, I had shared what I thought would happen, after sleeping on it (the Texas lawsuit) here: https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/12/briefly-noted-somethings-going-on-but.html?showComment=1607625378533&m=1#c2333805012624515586ReplyDelete
I think what you said in the other thread below is real.
"the SCOTUS as a constitutional institution--and therefore the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government--delegitimized itself. I don't think that's retrievable. From here on out, US politics will be changed and the rule of law will be sidelined."
I interpret the SCOTUS' attitude as: "whether we agree or not really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, you'll have to fight ti solve this. So we refuse to be used by any side as a weapon. Fight it out, this has been in the works for decades".
I've been saying this, I think all legal channels are exhausted by now, which was necessary before doing what remains the only thing that can be done. Sad of course, but George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, I'm sure, didn't particularly like it either.
We will see if Trump is Chamberlain or Churchill. Or maybe if Flynn is another Putin, coming from old guard of secret service fighting the new oligarchs.
The Courts have applied the restrictive definition of "standing" from private tort and contract actions to cases affecting the public interest. I think every US citizen (and state) should have standing to bring suit in such matters. If Pennsylvania failed to follow its own constitution and thus gave Biden 20 electoral votes he should not have had, that effectively disenfranchises the 74 million people who voted for Trump. The Court's resort to a "lack of standing" is a coward's way out.ReplyDelete
Massachusetts v EPA is the most recent example of that.Delete
Yes, individuals of MA, along with many other stated and cities, sued the EPA to enforce global warming laws all over the US.
Guess what? MA et al won.
"I could not say it any stronger. Take a deep breath. More to come."
These politicians we elected hate our guts.ReplyDelete
These politicians we elected have no guts.
The problem with the Texas suit is it was asking the court to require the state legislatures to use power they already have. As much as I would have liked the SCOTUS to spare us from the consequences of #StolenElection, my suggestion now is when the Usurper tries to sue the Free States, the answer should be, "You don't have standing."ReplyDelete
SCOTUS just threw away our Republic We just lost it.ReplyDelete
To rebel or not to rebel, that is the question.ReplyDelete
PDJT must appoint Giuliani as Special Counsel and indict Joe Biden before January 20. Giuliani said on Bannon's War Room he can do that, first a narrower indictment and later a broader one.ReplyDelete
Cocktail parties galore for the new supreme court 3 card monty posseReplyDelete
Not long ago, states were allowed a more lenient standing requirement than private individuals/groups, Massachusetts v EPA.ReplyDelete
Even with that, though, there was debate all up and down the judiciary on standing as the case involving 12 states and private entities wound its way to the Supreme Court.
Even more ironic, is Roberts dissent asserting they had no standing due to no immediate harm and the harm itself was conjecture.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court at the time stated they had standing and won on the merits. This meant that one state, the US federal government, was forced by many other states to regulate all states.
Standing is a funny thing. It’s a concept built out of judicial edicts, policy, and rules. It’s a necessary evil, though, but can be abused. Historically, standing was fairly strict, but was loosened for states as in MA v EPA.
Ironies of ironies is that a more liberal court allowed a less strict view of standing while a more conservative one did not.
Ironies of ironies upon ironies is that Roberts is consistent on standing, it appears, just not on much else, like the Constitution.
Good comment, Texas.Delete
Of course, Mass v EPA as decided was terrible law...but those claiming injury did get heard.
Seems to me Texas et al would have gone further if they made this simple claim:ReplyDelete
"If Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin do not have to abide the Constitution, then neither do we. And this includes all previous SCOTUS rulings to which we must adhere."
Don't ask for permission to file, rather file the above as a declaratory statement.
"Don't ask for permission to file, rather file the above as a declaratory statement."Delete
Yeah, it's come to that.
RE Flynn comment - Bottom line is if we don't have a real plan to defeat Big Tech, Wall Street and the MSM, then we are truly in trouble. Apparently it won't matter what happens with these individual state suits if no one will report on it. Even the General knows one of the first things you want/need to control in any confrontational situation is the communications stream. How are we going to do that?ReplyDelete
Cities could designate themselves as city/states with their own constitutions and the rest of us patriots stick with the original. We would have our own Supremes. Of course, we would have to enforce tariffs on foodstuffs, issue passports and visas, etc. to get in or out of the city/states. Walls sound good, too.ReplyDelete
I won't pretend to understand the legal motivation of why the wisest judges in the land chose not to involve themselves in the face of such blatant injustice and fraud. Every step of the way "conservatives" chose to justify their inaction with more laws as to why they couldn't or shouldn't do something. Federal, state and local representatives, judges, and law enforcement will all have contributed to the violence that will come if no court brings justice. We have a new two party system - Patriots and those who align themselves with fraudsters.ReplyDelete
I think it is time we all get used to the idea that the America we have loved and truly believed in is gone.
This "revolution" has been a quiet one, and has slipped past complacent Americans before the beginning of the Civil War. The left has actively been working against our constitutional republic--within our borders--since the beginning of the 20th Century. Rather than root them out, try them as they traitors they were, and publicly hang them, our forebears allowed them the advantage of the First Amendment to spew their vitriol.
Worse, they were allowed more and more positions in our teaching institutions, co-opting our precious offspring little by little. That long-term approach has left us with a generation of entrenched, home-grown leftists who have been thoroughly brainwashed.
Anyone with half a brain knows this election was rigged. There's too much evidence to support that assertion as fact to credibly deny. But half our population is just fine with that fact. As long as their team won, they'd couch their approval with "the end justifies the means," especially since they rid themselves of the "Great Orange Meanie."
I'm 70 years old and I've fought against this all my life. But the fact is, if the highest court in the land is perfectly happy to let this election stand, even with "6 constitutional originalists" sitting on the bench, there's nowhere else we can go. The Texas threat of secession is guaranteed to put half the state in prison as traitors, or overcome the state with the full power of the United States armed services. (For discussions on secession, see: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/).
While opposition to the regime is heroically romantic, it is impossible to win against an opponent who can target anything or anyone from space, lock on an armed drone, and vaporize them on a whim. As the Borg say, "Resistance is futile."
After this election, the die has been cast. There will never again be an honest election. There will never again be even the hint of a representative government. Government will only get more greedy until they break the bank and destroy the country entirely. Unfortunately, what history tells us about such episodes is that abject tyranny (for "your own good," of course) will immediately follow.
That's how this old man sees it anyway. I truly hope I'm wrong, but it's all pretty well played itself out exactly the way it needs to in order to end a constitutional republic.
It was a good run while it lasted.
Making this about Trump is convenient for all of those in power and all quislings who bow to their power. They will justify their actions to themselves and others on the basis of dealing with the supposed threat Trump poses. But it has never been about Trump it has always been about the citizens who sent Trump. It still is at this very moment. The elites have made their response to our sending Trump. Now it's our move. What we lack in seeming organization we make up for in numbers and moral purpose. They are corrupt and their corruption cannot stand. Whether PDJT forms a new political party or inokes the insurrection act or dies something else, this fight us not and never was about him. There are many many potential leaders and many many followers and this is by no means over. Who among us believes he can just go back to "the usual routine"? There are profound changes occurring right now and profound forces responding to those changes. Do not be afraid.ReplyDelete