Thursday, May 27, 2021

More On The Roberts' Strategy--If That's What It Is

My presentation in Is The CJ Roberts Plan Working? has received some vigorous pushback in the comments. I've also pushed back vigorously. What I'll do here is elaborate a bit on the issues involved and also paste in the comments below.

Here's the nub of what I wrote yesterday about the "Roberts Strategy"--an admittedly speculative notion:

Back at the beginning of March I wrote a post that examined an idea that Shipwreckedcrew had put forward. The basic idea was that, in declining to involve the SCOTUS in legal disputes over the 2020 presidential election Roberts was pursuing an actual strategy--not just abdicating the SCOTUS' responsibility to uphold the Constitution.

Let me elaborate on that idea just a bit, to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt. There's no question that the SCOTUS could have stepped in--the Texas case in which numerous additional states joined would have been, IMO, perfect. From that standpoint the reasons given by the SCOTUS for sidestepping the case were unconvincing and harmed the prestige of the court by calling its judicial integrity into question. After all, what constitutional issue could be more fundamental and more important than one that called into question our entire electoral process? I discussed this aspect in the earlier post: Arizona Election Law Case In SCOTUS.

On the other hand, while the SCOTUS--in contrast to the executive and legislative branches--is supposed to be above politics, it simply is no longer possible for the Court to disregard political considerations--if that ever was possible. That is all the more true in that politics in America have become utterly toxic from a constitutional standpoint. The country is sharply divided, with the current regime narrowly controlling both the White House and Congress impugning fundamental concepts of the American order. What is the SCOTUS to do--plunge forward, or ...

Encourage the state legislatures to act by exercising their constitutional authority to regulate elections? That would return elections to regulation by the political branches of state governments, where the US Constitution placed the authority in the first place. The idea is that the putative Roberts strategy would support state legislatures taking charge of their own affairs--rather than the SCOTUS arrogating that authority to itself. In future, then, the SCOTUS would largely butt out of election law cases--the effect being to neuter much of the electoral lawfare we currently see in the federal courts. Voters at the state level would be able to express their views on their own states' election laws and their own courts at the ballot box. That HOPEFULLY is the significance of the SCOTUS--having previously declined to get involved in more sweeping election cases--now taking on a much more pointed case involving the swing state of Arizona.

That is not an argument for ignoring election law. What it is is an argument for accepting cases on a very narrow basis--when state law on its face violates some constitutional principle, not based on speculative concepts of disparate impact, such as we're seeing more and more. Those issues were not raised in the TX case that the SCOTUS sidestepped, but they are very much front and center in the AZ case--from a Dem electoral strategy standpoint the AZ case is a potential dagger pointed at the heart of their strategy.

As you'll see when you get to the comments pasted in below, I make the argument that it wasn't the SCOTUS' responsibility to save the GOP. Because let's face it--Trump did what he could to win reelection. The election was sabotaged not just by the Dems but by the GOP. We've seen that in state after state, during the post election squabbling. We're at the point now that the GOPers who sabotaged Trump--governors, legislators, AGs, SecStates--are now scrambling to fix their standing with the voters. Because they now realize that their strategy failed. They thought voters would be duped by the fraud, and accept a false loss by Trump. Instead, voters realize that the fix was in.

The justices at the SCOTUS aren't entirely stupid, nor are they entirely without political views. Some, especially Roberts himself, may have desired a Trump loss. That's as may be. The question is, was it the responsibility of the SCOTUS to rescue officials in GOP run states who failed live up to their own responsibilities? Arguably it was the greater responsibility of the SCOTUS to wait for the right case to try to put US election law back on a sounder constitutional basis. Also arguably--because I can't know this--they may have felt that the AZ case that was heading their way would provide that opportunity in a better way than the TX case would.

Now, here's an excerpt from an article today by John and Andy Schlafly--Election Audits Confound Never-Trumpers. In the first part of the article they make a strong case for the utter fecklessness--not to say perfidy--of the GOPe at the state level. The SCOTUS justices would have had to be fools not to have seen this, immersed as they had been in last minute election cases--they had a better overview than most of us:

Last week Georgia Superior Court Judge Brian Amero ordered a forensic audit by independent experts of 147,000 mail-in ballots counted in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta. Shockingly few mail-in ballots were rejected for invalid signatures, and the overwhelming majority of those ballots were counted in favor of Biden to provide him the margin of his reported victory in Georgia, as in other swing states.

Trump’s team sought to monitor the initial post-election sham review of ballots in Fulton County, which is Georgia’s most populous county. But Anti-Trump officials there blocked access by Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to the process, despite how review of illegitimate mail-in ballots should have been open to the public as Democrats ran up an implausible 244,000-vote overall county margin for Biden there.

Election integrity is a matter of enormous public concern, not to be swept under the rug after the media declares one side to have won. This issue confounds the Never-Trumpers, who fail to support these election audits that include Republican review of many Arizona Maricopa County ballots.

This election audit in Georgia and also in Arizona could prove that the election was indeed stolen from Trump and his more than 74 million supporters. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll demonstrates that most Republicans still view Donald Trump as the true winner of the presidential election.

This independent poll confirms that 61% of Republicans feel that the last election was stolen, and the same number do not think that mail-in ballots are counted accurately. Nearly 60% of Republicans view the January 6th protests at the Capitol as mostly peaceful, and by law-abiding Americans.

With no changes by the Pennsylvania Republican legislature to reduce mail-in voting fraud there, last week Democrats won a state senate election in northeastern Pennsylvania by a landslide. Perhaps Republicans would have picked up that seat if Pennsylvania had restored election integrity.

The Republican-controlled Texas legislature is wrapping up its biennial session now without enacting true election reform. The declining margins of victory for Republicans in Texas is reportedly due to changes in demographics, but the bigger reason is the increased exploitation of early and mail-in voting by the Democrat machine in the Lone Star state.

In contrast with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Texas Governor Greg Abbott failed to do anything to stop allowing hundreds of thousands of unverified mail-in ballots. A milquetoast bill promoted as election reform languishes in Austin, despite how Republicans have commanding majorities in both legislative chambers plus the governor’s mansion.

Failure to enact election integrity legislation signals inaction on other high-profile issues, too.

Now, in my comments below--and I'll be presenting all arguments--note that I'm arguing for a return to a true federalist vision of our constitutional order. The benefit of the doubt that I'm granting to Roberts is that that's his vision, too. Involving the local government--returning the field of election law to the states, as long as the laws are facially valid--would allow ordinary Americans to regain control. That's what the Founders envisioned in the Constitution, and that would have far more legitimacy than a judicially imposed solution. This doesn't mean that the SCOTUS would abjure involvement in any and all election law cases--only that they would defer to the levels of government closest to the people. Which is exactly what the Constitution envisioned. This long audit process may, in the long run, prove to be exactly the medicine needed to restore integrity to our electoral process.

So, the comments from the other post:

  1. Sounds good. States Rights. But if some White Supremacy state were to count all votes from a white area five times over, wouldn't it nullify the 15th Amendment? Or perhaps a corrupt State government could count five times over the votes from a black area, or even substitute fabricated votes, and claim racism and voter suppression if any questions were raised. Since money talks, it would seem a worthwhile investment for a country like China to buy up a handful of States and control American elections forever, after having bought up the media.

    1. "as long as the laws in question are not discriminatory on their face it's time for the federal courts to more or less butt out."

      If the laws are racially neutral the SCOTUS would back off and leave handling that to the enforcement branch, the executive. The examples you give are of non-neutral laws or of clear violations of laws.

    2. So who handles clear violations of election law in a timely manner if all elements of a State government are complicit?

    3. If even the executive branch drops the ball, are there no remedies through the courts?

    4. The executive, the President himself, asked the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether laws had been violated. They dropped the ball.
      The law is someething of a safety valve. Like diplomacy, it permits issues to be addressed before they escalate to war or its equivalent. The Supreme Court not taking up the case brought to them by one third of the States and the President himself, it is almost inevitable that these issues will be resolved in other fashions, and it will not be pretty.

    5. Probably the federal government. It's not as if the courts have eliminated election fraud, is it? You can't really be serious with these questions?

    6. Nobody said the courts would NEVER get involved. Please read what I wrote, rather than just spinning off questions.

    7. "The law is something of a safety valve. Like diplomacy, it permits issues to be addressed before they escalate to war or its equivalent."

      Right--so you're really happy with what the SCOTUS has done with the law for the past half century. How did that "safety valve" to prevent escalation to war work during the years before the Civil War? Please get serious.

      The Constitution was not designed to establish rule by the SCOTUS.

    8. What you have written is admirable, but it addresses general considerations of election law, and points to future developments. But let us really get serious, first of all by acknowledging that the past election is not behind us. The Supreme Court was not asked to rule, but to issue a ruling on specific election irregularities. The law cannot eliminate election fraud, but should be able to address violations thereof. Diplomacy unfortunately does not always prevent war, but as von Clausewitz put it when unsatisfactory the next step is war. You "question whether what we see happening in Arizona with regard to the AZ senate's audit of Maricopa County may reflect the effect of Roberts' strategy." I would suggest that the various State audits, as well as revelations of illegalities and irregularities unknown to us but that POTUS 45 may be able to document, will have a more marked effect on future elections and where this Country is headed than any of Roberts' legal strategies.

    9. "the various State audits, as well as revelations of illegalities and irregularities unknown to us but that POTUS 45 may be able to document, will have a more marked effect on future elections and where this Country is headed than any of Roberts' legal strategies."

      Did it ever occur to you that Roberts may be of the same opinion? That he thinks that audits and investigations by the people who are in charge of the elections, as designated by the US Constitution, the state legislatures, is the way to handle "illegalities and irregularities"? Is it really up to the SCOTUS to provide legislators and elected officials with backbones, when the laws are already clear? The notion that the SCOTUS can preserve our union and our federal republic is ultimately unworkable, and is certainly not the system envisioned or put on paper by the Constitutional Convention. Given that the Congress has evolved into something that no longer resembles what the Founders envisioned, returning election disputes to the level closest to We The People--to the country and state level, as specified by the Constitution--properly leaves the decision on the direction in which this country will proceed to the voters.

      The SCOTUS has already screwed up much of our constitutional order by taking over matters that don't properly belong to it. The Court can't save us from our folly. Ultimately the people need to make their minds up through voting. 

      I don't insist that this is Roberts' position, but it's a plausible interpretation. Nor do I insist that it will work--that ultimately is a question that the people must decide. Not a panel of life appointees. If the people don't insist on constitutional government, there's little the SCOTUS can do in the long run.

    10. Too true, but isn't it unfortunate that in the weeks following the election none of the substantial allegations being made were addressed by the courts and legislatures, and the last minute appeal by Texas, the President and other States to the Supreme Court was not taken up. The longer this drags on the more devastating and disruptive the consequences are likely to be for the Nation.

    11. The counter argument that Roberts might well make is that it is, in fact, far less disruptive that "this" should "drag on" following the provisions in the Constitution and state law--as opposed to a judicially imposed solution. The judicial solution would never be able to ascertain the actual facts of the fraud, whereas this process may well establish the fraud beyond reasonable doubt.

      I happen to regard the TX lawsuit as having been reasonably based. The fact remains that several swing states were totally controlled by the GOP while others had GOP controlled legislatures--the key in election law--yet the GOP in those states took no effective steps despite clear indications of what was coming. Is it really the job of the SCOTUS to take novel cases to rescue feckless politicians from responsibility for their mal/misfeasance? While I believe the constitutional principles are clear enough, the question of how the SCOTUS should conduct itself in a politically charged situation is not as clear.

    12. "If the people don't insist on constitutional government, there's *little* the SCOTUS can do in the long run."

      Even if there's *little* the SCOTUS can do, why couldn't the SCOTUS do that "little", when presented with strong evidence of systematic misconduct?
      If Roberts ends up going the route theorized here, OK, but until he does so, in *emphatic* ways, I assume that he was ducking for its own sake, or some such. 
      For the court to have dismissed pleas from c. 20 AGs, with minimal explanation, was a flip of the bird, that Roberts had better rectify very very soon.

    13. Thank you especially for these last two paragraphs, and the reminder that those we are prone to criticize may well be the adults confronting a complex situation. Sometimes you have to muddle on through, and hope that we and the Nation will come out the better for it.

    14. @ aNanyMouse: What you're asking the SCOTUS to do is to take on the role of commenting on the political situation we now find ourselves in--which is a situation with a long history and many complications that fall well outside what is found in the "constitution and laws" of this republic. That's a role for which the justices have no particular qualifications, and so they were perhaps wise to wait for another case "with minimal explanation." Did you know at the time of the TX case that the AZ case was headed to the SCOTUS? I'm not ashamed to say that I was not aware of that at the time. Would it have been proper for the SCOTUS to have offered that as a reason for declining to take the TX case? Arguably not. 

      "For the court to have dismissed pleas from c. 20 AGs, with minimal explanation, was a flip of the bird ..."

      For those state AGs and legislatures to have taken no action to enforce their own voting laws--the authority given to them in the Constitution, not to the SCOTUS or any other court--was that not a flip of the bird ... to the voters? Was it right for those AGs and legislatures to PRETEND--I'm looking at YOU Mark Ackman--that that was someone else's responsibility? Was it entirely wrong for the SCOTUS to, in effect, suggest that the AGs and legislatures act to "rectify [that] very very soon"?

  2. As a non lawyer, My take is usually the Supreme Court takes the easiest way out under Roberts, and avoid controversy. I’m amazed this case was started 5 years ago. This case being know it’s was scotus bound, nicely explains why scotus avoided at all costs weighing in on the 2020 election.

    The easiest way out is put Election matters back in the state’s jurisdiction. 

    On other matters throw it back to congress to fix.

    1. "the Supreme Court takes the easiest way out under Roberts"

      I'm by no means a Roberts fan, but I'm willing to consider that an approach--in effect--of demanding that the Legislative and Executive branches bear their share of Constitutional burden. Whether or not that's Roberts' strategy for the long term, it is a federalist approach. My criticisms of Roberts' approach have to do with bowing to the culture.

    2. I think it's interesting that the argument for seeing things on the other hand (and thereby giving CJ Roberts the benefit of the doubt) seems to hinge on this notion that since the nation is "sharply divided" - by what or on what terms one has to ask - The Supreme Court can be given leave to make political considerations in ruling on the Law, i.e. the Court is playing King or Keeper of the Constitution (or CJ Roberts is) and deciding how best to keep the nation out of civil war (or something terrible that apparently would result from "sharp divisions" not being accomodated by him). But this argument for SCOTUS ruling on the basis of at least in part political considerations just drives the nail further into the coffin of the Rule of Law -- what good is PRETENDING to stay in your lane and rule on the law only, in order that you might in the future find the opportunity to really truly stay in your lane and rule on the law only? There will always be politics, there will always be contention and the whole point, the entire point in being a "nation of laws" is that there is a system of justice that allows for the laws to rule.

    3. Do me a favor and read what I write before commenting. Is that too much to ask?

      I never argued that the SCOTUS "can be given leave to make political considerations in ruling on the Law". The SCOTUS is not required to accept any and all appeals. It accepts only a tiny number of petitions for review and it has long been established that it's prudent for the SCOTUS to wait for cases in which the factual basis raises clear constitutional or legal issues. That is not a "ruling" but is simply a prudential legal consideration on when a "case or controversy" is presented at a time and in such a manner that it's "ripe" for decision. This is a well established principle in judicial management.

      It appears that the SCOTUS decided that the TX case wasn't the right case, but that the AZ is. I may disagree with that assessment, but there are arguments in favor of that position. The AZ case, if decided in favor of AZ, would potentially give all states a huge incentive to take control of their elections and root out fraud.

      "the entire point in being a "nation of laws" is that there is a system of justice that allows for the laws to rule."

      Really? The laws are not self executing. It takes people to enforce the laws. And the point of being a federal republic is that the nation isn't ruled by a panel of nine unelected lawyers. Rule of law is just a bit more complicated than that and involves the legislature and executive--as Andrew Jackson figured out, long ago. Just because the nation has gotten used to giving deference to the SCOTUS no matter what, doesn't mean that that situation will continue forever.

      With that in mind, the SCOTUS is arguably in a difficult position when dealing with election law, because the Constitution views election law as something to be handled at the state level. To argue that the SCOTUS should exercise restraint, therefore, is not to abjure "rule of law" at all. Whatever I may think of the SCOTUS' handling of the TX case, it did not "PRETEND[] to stay in its lane and rule on the law only." It provided a rationale for not taking up a constitutional issue at that time.



  1. Mr Wauck - think you’re spot-on with this & - like most - I’ve never missed an opportunity to sling mud @ Roberts, however I’m more than happy to eat crow if this is indeed what he’s doing. And you’re right, we shouldn’t expect the SC to step in & basically legislate an outcome that should already have been handled further up the line.

    The real argument here is with State AG’s & State Election Boards & their willful dereliction of duty.


    1. Here's the thing. If it was their intention to simply allow the shenanigans to continue, they would just have declined to take the AZ case. So, I assume they will affirm the AZ law. At that point, though, the onus is on the states--where it should be.

  2. Was that Pennsylvania county in play? I ask, because you must know that northeast PA is basically New York City.

    This is not to imply any confidence in the GOP.

    1. Does this tell you anything?

      "During the 2016 presidential election, the county swung dramatically to Republican Donald Trump, who won it with 58% of the vote, the largest margin since President Richard Nixon in 1972. It was the first time a Republican presidential candidate carried the county since 1988. Trump won the county almost as easily in 2020.

    2. I suppose so.

    3. This is what I mean. It's not reasonable to expect the SCOTUS to be the nation's election fraud cop. The Founders didn't expect it and we shouldn't either. When Franklin allegedly said, A republic if you can keep it, I doubt that he really meant: A republic if the SCOTUS can keep it for you. I think he was talking about the people being involved in keeping it.

  3. "The election was sabotaged not just by the Dems but by the GOP. "

    What I find is MANY of the party supporters do not want to accept that their own party was largely responsible for the 2020 fraud. The they understand there was fraud but they wish to deflect it, wish cast it elsewhere or demand that someone else take up their political issues they have with their own party.

    Largely that issue is simply stated as "the GOP isn't a conservative party".

    In some ways Texas wished to deflect what transpired under their own teams oversight. But what it undisputably cones down to is that Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and others had republican Senates that flatly refused to do their jobs.

    Looking ay it from that aspect... Where in the constitution is it the SCOTUSs job to force a party to state body to do it's constitutionally granted job?

    Embrace the suck that happened... Stop letting your egos get into the way of false a belief system and hold your party accountable. Or IMHO... Do what I did and leave the party that doesn't represent you.

    People need to learn to look to themselves for their own answers. đŸ™„

  4. I don’t know Chief Justice Roberts’ intent or his mindset. All we can do is discern from his opinions, past and recent and he appears all over the map.

    The Supreme Court, by design, is the weakest of the 3 branches and is truly only powerful because the other 2 allow it and that has not always been the case.

    The basic is problem I have with this theory is that it imparts meaning to Roberts and the court that I am not sure exists. We have been down this road before here on this blog via Barr and the DoJ.

    The Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional conduct can exist and reversed itself. So, in this regard it’s never a savior, just an arbiter on what the flavor of thought of the day.

    Lastly, I am done on playing the long ball on politics because it appears to be that the short ball, along with taking advantage of situations, is what counts.

    1. I pretty much agree. Re long ball v. short ball, that's OK for you, but by the nature of their oath of office the justices--especially the CJ if he's a leader--do need to look to the long term.

  5. I agree with you Mark. This fits the same pattern with ObamaCare in my opinion. His message on these types of issues is that the power resides in the legislature and should be decided by them. I just wonder if the legislature is willing to do it's job at any level anymore. They have been hiding behind the courts and executive branch for a long time, writing really poor laws and leaving it to the other branches to figure out.

    Steve M

    1. Yes, that's what I was trying to articulate. The federal government--actually all three branches--have morphed into things that the Founders didn't envision. The states are closer to the original intent, except their hands have been tied by the feds. If the SCOTUS wants to revive the federalist vision then empowering the states is just about the only option.

  6. "The justices at the SCOTUS aren't entirely *stupid*, nor are they entirely stupid."
    As both clauses together were redundant, maybe you meant the 2nd use of "stupid" to be something else?

    "Involving the local government--returning the field of election law to the states, as long as the laws are facially *invalid*...."
    Do you meant "facially valid"?

    "Trump won the county almost as easily in 2020."
    Is this the county, in which the Schlaflys say the Dems just won (a state senate election) by a landslide?

  7. Yes, yes, our national and state legislature need to step up, along with their respective executive.

    What if the don’t or refuse?

    The court long ago placed itself as the one entity that can determine constitutionality of a legislative or executive act.

    Thing is, what happens when the supreme decider ... ha ... W ... decides it is not a decider in any of the sort?

    1. @Texas Dude

      "What if the don’t or refuse?"

      That is kind of the crossroads we've been at for some time now. The states have massive power and ability to push back or change many things but they simply don't.

      We could go down a really long winding road of "why" but I think a slightly oversimplified answer comes from the two party system.

      Looking at 2016 to present we have seen time and time again where both parties have been caught face first splitting the cookie jar between them. In the election I'm beginning to believe the larger endeavor didn't come from democrats but republicans. They have certainly been the line holders of both the results and the audits.

      Where the average Joe comes into play, they need to surrender to what's in front of them and drop the parties if they expect anything to change.

      Time will tell but Arizona seems to be a good example of how independents carry more weight. The 2 parties there are quite weak compared to the number of independent voters that carry the state. It's one of the few examples in politics where you have actual republicans in the Senate holding the party-mates in the county responsible. It's pretty impressive.

      Texas Georgia and others are good examples of how party numbers makes for complacency, sweet talk and disingenuous BS. Faux lawsuits, bill for succession, election integrity bills that bury integrity, etc.

      Conservatives need a new party, but the only way were going to get one is if we take responsibility for ourselves and demand it.

      Funny thing is... There are only something like 36 million register Repubs nationwide. It's a tiny fraction of voters compared to independents or the 170M that voted in 2020. It wouldn't take much of us low life's to drop our affiliations for heads to turn.

      Trump was the guy to make the breakaway but chose not to. Now we're selling MAGA endorsement and giving it to the likes of McCarthy and Rubio. Why? Who knows... But it isn't just the Repub party that needs to see and hear that people are fed up!

  8. “ all three branches--have morphed into things that the Founders didn't envision. The states are closer to the original intent”

    Yep and it started darn near close to ratification.



  10. Reuters is often biased against Republicans, so my guess the real numbers are at least 15% worse.

    >This independent poll confirms that 61% of Republicans
    > feel that the last election was stolen,


  11. I missed your first take on the "Robert's Strategy" but this quote from today really took me back:
    "The election was sabotaged not just by the Dems but by the GOP. We've seen that in state after state, during the post election squabbling. We're at the point now that the GOPers who sabotaged Trump--governors, legislators, AGs, SecStates-"

    YES! That is an excellent observation and your logical inferences based on it visa vis the Supreme Court are to my mind cogent.

    Thank you. I learned something this morning.

    1. Thanks, Tom. In fairness, many other commenters have observed this as well.

    2. "We're at the point now that the GOPers who sabotaged Trump--governors, legislators, AGs, SecStates-""

      These Trotskyites are the most dangerous faction in our nation right now. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker is a poster boy for the GOPe Never Trumpers who, though constantly under fire for extensive corruption, has been in lockstep with the regime calling Trump's election fraud claims "baseless." It is unfortunately the corruption of the Massachusetts Democratic party that seems to have freighted Baker's seat as Massachusetts governor who tramples the Massachusetts Constitution at every opportunity.

      There's yet to be coverage of the landmark lawsuit case of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai v. Massachusetts/Twitter, when Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin ordered Twitter to censor, and then suspend Dr. Shiva's Twitter account in order to silence Shiva's political statements during his election campaign.

      Governor Baker also refused to debate Scott Lively, who opposed Baker in the 2018.

  12. We leave in half an hour. I'll enable comments--eventually--upon return. The procedure is supposed to last an hour, but it does require general anesthesia, so the in and out processing times will be a factor.

    1. Forget the comments, today's about your biggest supporter and we wish her a speedy recovery!

    2. Thanks, just got home, setting things up.


  14. Praying for quick healing for your wife. Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

  15. Who is Mark Ackman?

    I tried figuring it out with done online searches and came up blank.

  16. SWAG on what eGOP missed:

    1. GOP voters in states frauded are even more upset.

    2. Trump’s influence did not disappear with his excommunication by the tech giants. Cheney’s removal from the house leadership is an example of Trumps continued influence.

    3. Trump did not go silent as traditionally other ex gop candidates did.

    4. How low the credibility of the establishment is. They are in an echo chamber and believe the mainstream media. And don’t realize how the mainstream media’s power / influence has been tremendously reduced.

    5. Trump is just a symptom, but not the cause, of a huge political force that has been ignored by the elites in the us since Reagan.

    6. Accusations of Racism and insurrection are losing their power.

    7. Voters don’t believe the eGOP saying there was no fraud, and are upset at the lack of real investigations. This is red pilling more and more voters.

    8. Trump voters want change, they see the us going the wrong way. Trump delivered. And they don’t understand why the eGOP demonized Trump so much, when he actually did what he promised voters. And they are seeing the eGOP back Biden, that is testing apart everything Trump did. Price of gas is a constant reminder to Trump voters. They have no interest in amnesty, climate change, critical race theory that are all being pushed by the uniparty. And the increase in crime is further discrediting the uniparty. And a gut feel - the economy is going to get worse and the party in charge will get the blame.

    This sentence really resonated with me.

    We're at the point now that the GOPers who sabotaged Trump--governors, legislators, AGs, SecStates--are now scrambling to fix their standing with the voters. Because they now realize that their strategy failed. They thought voters would be duped by the fraud, and accept a false loss by Trump. Instead, voters realize that the fix was in.

    1. Yeah, good list. They're coming to the realization that it's not gonna be business as usual and that life without Trump isn't what they thought it would be.

  17. I've hesitated to comment on this as I can't, quite lay hold of where the Roberts Strategy ("RS") is off but I feel it is in my gut.

    Mark makes a persuasive argument that the RS is a bid to return to real federalism, forcing states to take responsibility for their elections and enforcement etc... One could ask whether this new Roberts religion holds true in any, other areas? For example, abortion, an area where the RS could do genuine good, leaving it up to each state to legislate on abortion and rights to life. But so far.. don't see it. Maybe I am missing it. The RS feels, however, more like a clever excuse for avoiding major heat from their fellow Oligarchs. Never underestimate the supernatural power of humans to find a justification for their bad behavior.

    Another suspicious tell for me is the options SCOTUS passed on. For example, early on, both prior to 11.3 and after, PA asked the Court for emergency rulings on the actions of the governor and sec of state in changing PA election law unilaterally. The Court could have said, We're not going to tell you the remedy-- we leave that to state politicians-- but we will tell you that the governor violated the Constitution and actions should be taken to rectify it.

    In other words, part of a functioning republic is a citizenry who know whether their leaders are violating our basic charter. That seems to me one of the core functions of the Court. To refuse this is to deprive citizens of a clear mandate to demand change from their state government.

    Further, I'm not sure that national elections are suited for the RS. Yes, state legislatures have plenary power over their elections, but those plenary powers must be exercised consistently within the constitutional framework. So, to return to PA, the legislature is free to enact terrible electoral laws that allow mail in voting as long as it's done legally. But when a governor usurps those powers for whatever reason and the aggrieved Citizenry cannot get redress from state courts, SCOTUS must act to ensure that the corruption of one state doesn't deprive other states of their rights. This was the Texas lawsuit that the court also rejected. It is entirely possible to support the RS for many areas where the Court has intruded on federalism but allowing election laws to be violated to the detriment of the nation is not one of them.

    Finally, the RS as a practical matter won't work. An Oligarchy will not reform itself to the will of the people. It is oh so convenient for Roberts to find the federalism religion now that the federal framework envisioned by the Founders has been ruined and burned. Perhaps someone who is an avid SCOTUS watcher can comment on how Roberts employs this in other cases. Given his Oligarch Club Card it's safer to say that Roberts is just playing along.


    1. In general, the RS is speculation, but supported by some things from the past. It's not straightforward, however.

      Re PA--and TX too--the SCOTUS decides cases or controversies. It does not offer free advice or issue "advisory opinions." That's why they may have waited for AZ, while holding comments for the future, which offers what they may consider a more decisive and targeted way forward.

      Ultimately all I can say is, we shall see.

  18. I think the most damning item against the RS is CJ Roberts' oversight (or decided lack thereof) of the FISA court. Quite frankly , appalling. And the Texas suit was court of original jurisdiction. To me makes the rejection (on standing!) of a different character of cowardice. But what really galls me is that quite obviously the fraudsters coordinated and committed the fraud at a national level, so I don't know what capacity the legal system has to address this but putting the onus of policing of presidential elections on the states seems like a strategy to protect the fraudsters. A special master looking into the influence and conduct of Dominion Voting Systems, Inc in the 2020 election could get to the bottom of this in a hurry. Which is I imagine why it will never happen.

    Mark A.

    1. 1. I wanted the SCOTUS to take the TX case, and I disagree with the standing rationale, but I don't see what original jurisdiction has to do with the rightness or wrongness of that decision.

      2. "putting the onus of policing of presidential elections on the states seems like a strategy to protect the fraudsters."

      Take that up with the guys who ratified the U.S. Constitution. If you think the Constitution was written to enable fraud, well, I disagree.

      Your solution appears to be to have the federal government run elections--which is exactly what Pelosi's House is attempting to push through. The idea that the essence of reform is to transfer authority from the states to the feds is a basic part of the prog game plan. Always has been.

  19. 1. What Original Jurisdiction has to do with it is where does the plaintiff go to get a hearing? Out of luck? But its a State, so no biggee? Cases the SCOTUS decides to not take up for appellate review at least got a hearing. Ergo, it seems like they are avoiding a hearing not "finding the best case to implement their bangup strategy for stopping progressives from politicizing/corrupting the last 5% of the Federal Bureaucracy.

    2. The guys who ratified the constitution are no longer around to take it up with. Nor did they envision computer technology which allows Democrat party computer hackers or the IC take your pick , manipulate the nationwide presidential election from a central location or by a coordinated effort that monitored and acted upon several not to say many states at the same time. The people alive today who should be policing this kind of thing, IMHO, are the ones committing or in on the Fraud (feds, FBI,DOJ). Conservatives can't put together the blindingly obvious implications of Twitter's and Googles, and Facebook's control over the internet? Conservatives can't understand how a Software application works? More like, don't want to understand. There are millions and millions of IT professionals who not only understand the basics of cyber security and data protection, but are held accountable for preserving both for the computer systems of the businesses they work for. What was allowed to happen on these Dominion computer systems , as well as probably other voting systems, in many if not all states is criminally derelict from computer system management perspective. But because lawyers, judges and politicians can't be made to understand how it works, we get the giant run around. How about investigating, apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators of the criminal fraud?

    my solution is not to have the federal government run elections my solution is to stop pretending each and every state is running their own. They're not. A "third party" with no accountability to anyone is running them for them. And its a crime.

    Mark A

    1. #1 makes no sense at all. Where do they go for a hearing? They went to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS said they didn't have standing. Whether you or I agree with that or not, they had a hearing. The same result--finding of lack of standing--could have happened at any level.

      #2 The SCOTUS has to live with the Constitution as written--if they're being honest. The SCOTUS also has to live with the fact that it's a court. It has no powers to investigate, arrest, or prosecute, nor can it direct any other agency of the government to do so.

      #3 The third parties ARE accountable. They're accountable to the state legislatures.

    2. The problem with having the federal government run anything, is to easy to get politicized when the Democrats gain control,

      Examples include:
      - irs
      - Doj
      - fbi

    3. here's a few more of what the Dems have successfully politicized:

      Appellate courts
      district courts
      State Department
      Department of Defense
      Capitol Police
      Many City Governments across the country
      many State AGs across the country
      Many State election officials across the country
      many local school boards and school districts
      many HR departments of many corporations across the country

      Mark A

    4. @ Ray and Mark A.

      I agree with one small critique, in the word "Democrats". It's honestly a misnomer for what could be better stated as "big Government". It's precisely what the founders feared happening.

      Repubs could have at any time while in charge of the house dialed back agency funding and put all of them at a standstill in their lunacy. Rather than passing actual budgets however they keep throwing around continuations. Overstaffed and over paid idle hands do the devil's work (so to speak) and budgeting cuts are probably the only sure fire way to wipe civil servant slates clean.

      It's very easy to say it's a party problem but the truth is every time we start looking closely at issues (Russiagate, election fraud) you've got republicans smack dab in the middle of the inception.

      We as conservatives have to do a better job of fairly identifying the problems vs wish casting the symptoms if we expect any real change.

      Both parties are equally enablers of this juggernaut and we need to be the adults in the room.

  20. Since C.S. Lewis should never really be truly off-topic, I'm throwing out Steve Hayward's reminder today of Lewis' "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" in hope it will prod some to reread, or read for the first time, this incredibly prescient 1962 masterpiece. The more things change, it seems, the more they really do stay the same...

    Here's Hayward's piece:

    and here's the actual text:

    The West produced great men in far greater quantity not so very long ago.

    1. Part 3 of the Space Trilogy--That Hideous Strength--is a good companion to Screwtape, in a way.

    2. Thanks for the tip, Mark - I'll hit that tomorrow.

  21. Pretty decent RS article summing up all of the election audits. Some minor partisanship included but overall a good read.

    1. Slowly but surely the truth is seeping out. And the common knowledge of the big steal is being confirmed to the public, to the extent that they need confirmation. Left propaganda won't be able to persuade the public that anything but a steal happened. It's a building kind of thing, IMO.