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:

Briefly Noted: Turley's Take On The DoJ Trump-No-Obstruction Memo

This is ancient history by now, but Professor Turley's interpretation is that the OLC memo pretty much blows then AG Barr's critics away. His critics, of course, were the usual suspects of the progressive Legal Left. Moonbats like Larry Tribe. This, of course, was one of the good things that Barr did, and you can find the full Turley article here:

Newly Released OLC Memo Shows Staff Lawyers Found No Basis For Obstruction Charges In Mueller Report

This is ancient history in a sense, but will hamper the continuing jihad against Trump. It confirms the poor view of Mueller and the faux impeachers. For our purposes I'll just quote from Turley's concluding paragraphs:

The controversy of Barr’s summary largely focused on a couple lines where he said that the underlying facts from by Mueller would not satisfy the elements of the crime of obstruction. It turns out that staff had made that conclusion as did some of us from existing and controlling case law. Moreover, Barr stated that the reason for the delay in the release was the removal of any grand jury material as required by federal law.

The released portions does not contradict Barr’s claim that he could not simply release a two-volume, 450-page report. One can fairly criticize aspects of that summary but the delay of the release of the report (and need for a summary) falls more squarely on Mueller. Past hearings established that Barr and Rosenstein told Mueller that they wanted his staff to flag grand jury material because Barr wanted to release the redacted report rather than a summary.  Mueller appears to have simply ignored that instruction from his superiors. As a result, a full review had to be performed with Mueller’s staff to remove grand jury material, which is mandatory under federal rules.  If Mueller had flagged and redacted the grand jury material, the redacted report could have been released without much delay as Barr preferred.

The memo also undermines the claims raised in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. I testified in that hearing and disagreed with my three co-witnesses (Professors Michael Gerhardt, Pamela Karlan, and Noah Feldman) who insisted that Trump had committed obstruction of justice. They were not alone. Democrats and the media paraded a letter from over 450 prosecutors who declared unequivocally that “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”  The actual prosecutors at Main Justice found that not only would the allegations not meet the standard for obstruction of justice but that it would still be the case even if Trump was not the President of the United States.  The contrast shows the danger of such gotcha letters. With thousands of professors and prosecutors, it is not particularly difficult to get hundreds of signatories to support one side or another in a controversy. The Justice Department does not prosecute by plebiscite and this is why.

Well, one may be allowed to dispute Turley's blanket assertion in his final sentence as expressing an ideal. I think we all know that that's certainly not the invariable reality--if by "plebiscite" we understand "public opinion" or "political pressure."

UPDATED: Briefly Noted: Is The CJ Roberts Plan Working?

UPDATE: I'm putting this update at the beginning because it tends to support what follows. Briefly, this.

The Soros SecState of AZ was declining to get involved in the AZ election law case discussed below--it's now before the SCOTUS and it deals with stuff like ballot harvesting. This is potentially a huge case with implications for the freedom of ALL states to police elections as they see fit. While CA would doubtless seek to continue its anti-election integrity ways, most states would not. So, since the failure of the SecState to defend AZ law could throw a monkey wrench into the appeal, the AZ Attorney General has formally jumped in to preserve AZ's interests in fair elections. This via TGP--this reads like a press release and appears as a quote, but I couldn't find a link:

On Tuesday, Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a Motion to Intervene with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the State of Arizona in the Democratic National Committee lawsuit challenging Arizona’s ban on ballot harvesting and statutes regulating out-of-precinct voting. Attorney General Brnovich is moving to intervene on this matter on behalf of the State because defendant Secretary of State Hobbs has announced that she does not support an appeal.

As noted in today’s filing, Attorney General Brnovich moves to intervene in this matter, assuring the State’s interest in retaining its “broad authority to structure and regulate elections,” is fully preserved and that there is no possible procedural hindrance to Supreme Court review of the matter. The Attorney General is empowered by Arizona law to seek intervention in federal court on behalf of the State.

********************

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 isse 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.

I'll go into these issues a bit down below, by pasting in part of the earlier post which discusses the Arizona case that is now before the SCOTUS. For now, I want to simply 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. 

Here's what interests me. We saw early on in the audit process that Dem election lawyers descended upon AZ and urged the Zhou regime's DoJ to get involved. That hasn't happened, so far. Why not? Is it possible that the Dem lawyers have come to the realization--perhaps as a result of the SCOTUS taking on the AZ case--that any legal challenge by DoJ of a state exercising its authority under the US Constitution would likely get fast tracked to the SCOTUS, and could result in a sweeping ruling that the Dems could bitterly regret? The AZ senate is pressing forward with its audit, despite continuing obstruction--the senate shows absolutely no signs of backing down, which may be encouraging audit and/or reform efforts in other states as well. Again, the question arises: Is Roberts' strategy having an effect? We can only hope so. The road forward would be messy and prolonged, but politics almost always is. We have in our constitutional order a political regime. Such a Roberts strategy--if that's what we're seeing--would recognize that fundamental constitutional fact by returning to the states the authority that the SCOTUS unwisely usurped. We shall see.

Now, here's a portion of the previous post:

For History Buffs: Operation Gladio

Any other students of Operation Gladio out there? Today at LifeSite there's an interesting article about Operation Gladio, with useful links, by a very prominent traditionalist Catholic writer, Peter Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski rights mostly about liturgical matters, and so he attempts to tie Operation Gladio into the current disasters facing the Church, especially in the Post V2 period. I won't go into that, except to note the significance of Kwaśniewski's reference to Masonry in Italy--many important clerics at the time of V2 (and more so now) were associated with the notorious P2 Lodge, despite the Church's centuries old ban on membership in Masonic organizations. Among those clerics it is reported that Annibale Bugnini--inventor of the New Order--was a member. 

Kwaśniewski suggests that the Vatican's involvement in Operation Gladio led to institutional blackmail from then until now. I won't get into that, nor will I comment on the obvious moral ambiguities involved. My purpose in pointing to this article is simply to note that the notion of a Deep State directing US foreign policy has deep roots in history--roots that many Americans are quite unaware of. And yet, without knowledge of these matters--which have ramifications in so many directions--it's next to impossible to understand modern history, whether secular or sacred or both intertwined.

Coincidences during the reign of Pius XII? Political background to Vatican II and liturgical changes

It seems at least plausible that the Holy See’s twentieth-century misjudgment of international relations, with the dangerous bed-partners to which it led, has more than a little to do with the ambiguities and silences in Vatican II

...

1947 was the year that Operation Gladio was started by the CIA to stop the spread of Communism in western Europe. Those who wish to read more about the operation will find a good introductory article here, but the summary is that the CIA generated funding for Gladio through conspiring with mafia groups operating in the international drug trade and, in order to launder the drug money, employed the Vatican Bank due to Article 2 of the Lateran Treaty of 1929, which permitted the privacy they needed.

These anti-Communist actions resulted in the funding of various terrorist cells to prevent Communist and anti-American parties from gaining electoral office in Post-War Europe, as well as some high-level assassinations. Gladio, in essence, is the European version of Operation Condor of South America and reminds one of how the CIA trained the Taliban in the 1980s during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. 1948 saw the first election in which Gladio would interfere, when the Italian electorate were close to electing a Communist party to office.

Already in 1945, Pope Pius XII had met with William Donovan (former head of the OSS, precursor to the CIA, and chairman at the time of the American Committee on United Europe) about preventing the spread of Communism in Europe. Donovan was reportedly rewarded the Grand Cross of the Order of Sylvester due to his role as an anti-Communist crusader. Further, Pius XII is alleged to have worked with Alan Dulles, the first CIA Director (as well as a 33rd-degree Freemason and Council of Foreign Relations member) around the same time as part of Operation Paperclip, where over 1,600 German scientists were smuggled out of Post-War Germany to help in the development of US scientific endeavors, including defense and space capabilities related to rocket propulsion technology. I mention Dulles too because he was influential in reviving the Italian Masonic Lodge Propaganda Due (P2), which Mussolini banned during the 1920s and which would play an important role in Operation Gladio and seems likely to have played a role in shaping Vatican II as well. (It must never be forgotten that much of Vatican II’s agenda and strategy was determined by behind-the-scenes geopolitical negotiations; we know, for example, about the lengths to which the pursuit of Ostpolitik drove the Vatican.)

... 

Considering all of this, as well as what would later follow, is it possible that Pope Pius XII, in a sincere attempt to defend the Church against Communism, accidentally gave the Freemasons the leverage that they would need to (in effect) blackmail the Church and to make long-desired changes during Vatican II and beyond—especially by means of the liturgical reform run by Bugnini, a likely Freemason himself?

ER Re Audits, Fauci, Wuhan

Emerald Robinson is on a toot, er, tweet today. We all know the weaknesses of Twitter and related social media platforms, but when used well a single tweet can be a game changer for many people--it can give them just enough information in a convenient package to make their mind up. 

Robinson demonstrates this in a series of tweets this morning ranging over the only really important stories out there. For example, few of us any longer have the energy or time to really immerse ourselves in the details of the election fraud. We know it happened, but ...

What's important--as the Left knows so well--is the narrative. A few tweets can paint the big picture that's all most people really need or want:

Is China Jiggering It's Census Numbers? And Why?

SinoInsider--a site that is connected to Falun Gong--has published a very interesting (and lengthy) study of the latest PRC census numbers. As with all other matters statistical involving the PRC, census stats are subject to ... fine tuning by the authorities. For various reasons. 

The authors of this study

China’s Census Data Hints at Scale of COVID Coverup

cover a number of reasons behind what they believe are jiggered population statistics, but as you can clearly see their main contention is that the jiggering is primarily intended to cover up the extent of Covid related deaths in China.

For reference, China claims that the total Covid deaths amount to 4,636, as of May 12, 2021. A priori, that does seem difficult to accept. After all, China remains a country not only with an enormous overall population--somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.4 billion--but also a country whose population is older than average and where multiple generations live in crowded conditions. One would expect that older people and those most at risk would have suffered greatly, and that that would be reflected in very high mortality figures. Anything other than that result would logically attract inquiry and require some explanation.

The conclusion of the study is rather sensational. The authors believe that Covid deaths in China over the past year could exceed "8 digits". "Could exceed 8 digits" means that Covid mortality could be greater than 10,000,000. That's a lot of people. It's obviously also not a result that China would be proud of or would consider as reflecting well on the PRC--in other words, it would be a statistic that the authorities would regard as ripe for fine tuning or ... jiggering.

If the authors of this study are even remotely on to something, this is a very big story.

Lighter Blogging Ahead?

Let's get this out of the way. My wife will be having foot and mouth surgery this week. No connection--strictly a coincidence. The tooth extraction comes on Wednesday followed by toe fusion on Friday. As a result I'll be being helpful, taking over household chores that I wouldn't normally meddle with. We're not entirely sure to what extent and for how long my wife will be immobilized, but the new regime in place will slow my blogging down to some degree.

UPDATED: George Papadoploulos Puts His Entire Reputation On The Line

Hey, he said so--and it's about John Durham. Papadopoulos says Durham is "very real", "incredibly real", and that Durham will expose a conspiracy in the Obama administration--based on what Durham has learned about Joseph Mifsud. Durham is currently just waiting for the right moment, perhaps after the audit in AZ is finished.

"I would actually put my entire reputation on the line saying this…"

"I’m on the record of saying I put my reputation on the line regarding Durham."

Read it all at TGP.

I'm still skeptical. There was plenty of time to produce the Mifsud evidence. But I'll happily eat crow if it turns out to be true.

UPDATE: I want to be clear that my skepticism, as expressed above, only runs to Papadopoulos' expectations regarding Durham's supposed investigation. As I said, there's been plenty of time for substantial results, so I'm not optimistic. However, none of that means that I'm skeptical regarding Papadopoulos' accounts of what happened to him in London (events surround Alexander Downer), in Rome (events surrounding Joseph Mifsud), in Israel, and upon his return to the US (his dealings with the FBI and Team Mueller). I find his accounts to be believable in their essential details--even if they may be self serving in some respects. The self serving respects are to be expected from most witnesses. On the other hand, his accounts of his adventures as a dupe in the Russia Hoax have never seriously been contested--in my opinion. Think of him what you will, but that's not really the point.

NYT Warns Dems: BLM Is A Loser

Don't you luv it when liberals get bitten in the ass by their own hoaxes?

In a major story today the NYT seems to be warning Dems to back off the BLM hoax, because it's about to cost them dearly. An unspoken subtext--because it cuts too close to the ideological heart of the left--could be that years of White Privilege and White Supremacist hate narratives from the Left are coming home to roost. Riots? Sky high murder rates? It seems the NYT hasn't even heard of those aspects of the BLM phenomenon, but I'm betting everyone else has.

The story goes under this totally daft question:

Support for Black Lives Matter Surged Last Year. Did It Last?

The answer to that question could be said to run along these lines: You're joking me, right?

Support for BLM has, during the past year has absolutely cratered--and it didn't actually take long for that to happen. Quoth the NYT:

The reason for the drop seems to be shifting attitudes among Republicans and white Americans, two large and often overlapping groups.

Yes, white Americans are a large group--a very large group. So are Republicans or--worse for Dems--potential Republicans. Donald Trump demonstrated that truth in Election 2020 by attracting large numbers of Hispanics and, in a relative sense, Black men. Hang onto that bit about "overlapping groups", because you'll want to keep it in mind when you look at two graphs from the article.

The article is very much advocacy journalism, not just reporting. It's about desperately seeking some rationalization for this deplorable (!) development. In other words, as already seen--blaming the terrible polling numbers on deplorables: "Republicans and white Americans, two large and often overlapping groups."

Fauci Is Squirming

Polling is showing that Fauci is struggling with his credibility. The fact that, even on left wing shows where he's most likely to appear and be treated like royalty or a saint, he's being asked about the issues that Rand Paul has raised. The left media has likely been emboldened to question Fauci by exposés in New York magazine and most recently by liberal science journalist Nicholas Wade, as well as by liberal icons like pollster Nate Silver who has stated that Fauci has "gaslighted" the public.

Now I see Fauci slipping and letting the cat out of the bag to Politifact--as quoted by TGP:

UPDATED: Update On OSHA Reporting Mandates

A couple of days ago I noted--Could The Covid Regime Be A Boon For Lawyers?--that OSHA had ruled that employers who required employees to be vaxxed would need to report any adverse effects as workplace injuries.

Today, sundance has drawn attention to a new statement issued by OSHA. Note this well. OSHA is not saying that these are not workplace injuries--they are. OSHA is simply saying that it will not enforce its own regulations because they want everyone to participate in a medical experiment. They want everyone to be vaxxed.

Think about that. This is an experimental treatment that is known to cause serious side effects and injuries--including death. The legality of requiring employees to receive an experimental treatment of this sort is questionable in and of itself. But OSHA is saying any injuries caused by such a workplace mandate may be ignored. Read it here (h/t CTH):

OSHA – “DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.” (LINK)

I'm unaware of any legal challenges to the various aspects of the entire Covid regime, but I have to believe they're coming. For example, the anti-science mask mandates. The forced participation in a questionable experiment with known serious side effects. This is a crazy world we're living in.

UPDATE: Here's a good example of what's going on. I just saw this tonight, reported by Fox:. It seems that there are a "relatively few" reports that appear to link the Pfizer and Moderna injections to myocarditis in young people. Of course, "relatively few" is a relative term, and it's relative to who gets it. If you've got it, it doesn't seem like "relatively few". Anyway, the bottom line is, which would you prefer: A "mild" case of myocarditis or no case of myocarditis?

The Centers for Disease Control is investigating a small number of young adults and adolescents who may have experienced heart problems following a COVID-19 vaccine, though the agency stressed that it is unclear the vaccine is responsible. 

There have been "relatively few" reports of myocarditis and "most cases appear to be mild," but the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group said it felt the potential issue should be communicated to providers. 

The CDC noted that mRNA vaccines, which are made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, are potentially causing the problem. 

Reports of myocarditis have been mostly in adolescents and young adults, are more common in males than females, typically occur after the second dose, and show up about 4 days after vaccination. 

So, all those universities requiring kids to get vaxxed? C'mon--no legal responsibility? Really? For God's sake, this is an experiment! 

Transparency And Constitutional Order

I'm not aware that the word transparency appears anywhere in the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure that most people would agree--in principle--that there is firm understanding that the government of our republic is supposed to deal with the people on the up and up. That understanding may be tacit, but my impression is that it's pretty firm. We all know that it's often honored in the breach, but it's the point behind the regular exposures of "hypocrisy" on the part of politicians and other public officials. If transparency in matters that affect the general public were not accepted as a fundamental principle nobody would be outraged by the lack thereof.

That understanding is also behind what's going on with the audits--or, attempted audits--of the 2020 election. The attitude is: If they don't have something to hide, then why are they jiggering with the process?

Then there's the Covid casedemic.

Just the other day I wrote a post about the VAERS reporting on vax deaths and injuries. It's well known that the VAERS data--being voluntary and not widely advertised among non-medical persons--is not terribly reliable, erring very much on the low side. Today, Off-Guardian has an interesting article that expose what can only be described as deliberate deception in constructing and applying statistics to measure what's going on with the Covid regime:

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.

Many testing experts--including the now deceased inventor of the PCR test--have repeatedly pointed out the fact that the PCR test is being misapplied to identify Covid cases, both in principle and in the actual application. None other than Tony Fauci has openly admitted this. In fact, the author argues, the Covid pandemic is essentially a casedemic--a figment of bureaucratic statistical ingenuity: