CJ John Roberts brings ignominy to the US Supreme Court
London North Centre Candidate • People's Party of Canada
Since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case Texas filed against 4 states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) for their violation of the Electors Clause in the Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1., by a vote of 7-2, and the relief sought, Attorney Sidney Powell along with many others including General Michael Flynn (Retd) have now called upon President Trump to trigger his Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018.
Below is the link of the above Executive Order.
We are going to see soon a great deal of disclosures and their consequences as individuals are named, indicted, arrested for trials on the basis of this EO. I am posting this link for my FB friends and others so they might know, if they are not already aware and informed, what will occur in the next few weeks.
The refusal of the majority of justices of the Supreme Court to hear the Texas case will go down in ignominy. The seven justices turned “artful dodgers” shirked their constitutional responsibility to hear one of the most important cases on the crisis the republic is faced with since the 7-2 ruling of the Supreme Court in the case Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). The “Dred Scott” ruling written by the Chief Justice Roger Taney lit the fuse that exploded in the Civil War following the election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President.
I believe the conduct of Chief Justice John Roberts and the other six justices in not hearing the Texas case joined by some 20 other States, more than 100 members of the Congress and members of the State Legislatures, including the President of the United States, in other words State houses and voters representing more than half the U.S. population, was much more than absconding from their responsibility as custodians of the Judiciary, the third co-equal branch of the U.S. government. It was an act of supreme judicial cowardice.
Chief Justice Roberts' decision, joined by 6 other justices, was a lethal wounding of the U.S. Constitution and thereby a massive injury to the rule of law with dire consequences for the republic unless a political remedy is found.
The Texas bill of complaint was that the integrity of the Nov 3rd election was grievously undermined due to frauds, irregularities, electronic malpractices, and foreign interference and, as a result, the election of Biden as president would be a fraud perpetrated on the American people.
In denying hearing to Texas, the Supreme Court prevented presentation of evidence, and only then a decision could be fairly reached whether the complaint had merit or not.
In the “Dred Scott” decision Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that the negro, or black people, were not included, nor intended to be included, in the meaning of citizen and citizenship within the Constitution and, therefore, had no claim to the rights and privileges of an American citizen. With this ruling Taney rendered the entire jurisdiction of the United States open to slavery and struck down the landmark agreement known as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that placed limitation on slavery within the slave-holding states of the south.
The infamy of the “Dred Scott” decision has now been repeated by Chief Justice John Roberts and those justices who joined him, and among them the three justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump. Their decision was simply noted, without any reasoning provided, that “Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
And here I am not exaggerating in recalling the “Dred Scott” decision in assessing what the 7-2 denial of Texas’s bill of complaint by the Supreme Court represents.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the two dissenting justices. Justice Alito’s response joined by Justice Thomas was, “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”
Thomas and Alito both responded, contrary to Chief Justice Robert’s led decision, that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states the judicial powers of the Supreme Court extend “to Controversies between two or more States;” and in such circumstance, the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction, and not an appellate court only, where the complainant(s) might present evidences in seeking relief and is not limited to argue only matters of law.
By declining to hear Texas’s bill of complaint the Supreme Court denied Americans across the republic, and not only those 75 million who voted for President Trump, their right to see, hear, and know the evidences gathered to illustrate the mechanics and extent of frauds, irregularities, electronic malpractices, and foreign interference in the November 2020 election. Consequently, these will have to be presented in the political arena for the remedy, if sufficiently proven, that a stolen election cannot stand.
According to the “Electors Clause” in Article II, Section 1, the Constitution gives plenary powers to the State Legislatures to “appoint a Number of Electors” who will then cast their ballots for the President and the Vice President respectively. The appointment of Electors is made from lists provided by the contending parties to the State Legislatures, and the practice became of selecting the list of Electors from the party of the candidate that has won a majority of popular votes in the State.
Texas’s bill of complaint was that in the 4 States mentioned as defendants, the popular vote count for Joe Biden was riddled with irregularities mentioned and the evidence of these would be presented. The contention is that these States cannot appoint Electors from the list provided by the Democrats as the party of Joe Biden unless the contention is resolved.
The Executive Order of September 2018 laid out the requirements for the Director of National Intelligence to submit no later than 45 days after the election of 2020 a report on the integrity of the election. This report by Director John Ratcliffe is due on or before December 18.
This report, we may expect, will be a bombshell exposing the extent of the frauds, irregularities, electronic malpractices, and foreign interference in the stealing of the 2020 election by and for Joe Biden.
We already know the extent to which Joe Biden is compromised to foreign actors, such as Ukraine, Kazakhastan and, most importantly, China. We now know, and which was censored by the mainstream news media during the election and when mentioned described as Russian disinformation campaign, how Communist China financed Hunter Biden’s business ventures to the tune of US$1.5 billion and the manner in which he was compromised through drugs and sex caught on tapes and found in Hunter Biden’s laptop.
There is much more that is now under investigation by the oversight committees of the U.S. Senate, and the recent report of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs provide key findings of how greatly compromised Joe Biden is to foreign actors and China, described by John Ratcliffe in Wall Street Journal of Dec 3, 2020 as “National Security Threat No. 1.”
The network of foreign interference in the 2020 election is also vast.
The questions and revelations surrounding the Dominion Voting System and the Smartmatic software used for the 2020 election will expose a host of actors among whom the public is familiar with the notoriety of George Soros and all the various affiliated organizations and individuals he funds through his Open Society Foundation.
Once Director John Ratcliffe’s report is made public, the action required to respond to the revelations of the report will then become the urgent responsibility of the Executive Branch of the Government. Americans will then enter uncharted waters of the republic hugely divided over the outcome of the 2020 election, as did the generation of Americans who voted in 1860 electing Lincoln as president while the fuse lit by Chief Justice Roger Taney over “Dred Scott” raced towards the powderkeg of the Civil War.
The Constitution is never a suicide pact. But if it is made one, it happens because those charged with the responsibility of preserving it fail due to their incompetence or cowardice. The Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts failed.
The drama, however, is not over. It is never, as they say, until the Fat Lady sings.
Just as Lincoln became the President who saved the Union despite the failure of the Supreme Court to rule wisely in 1857 knowing well how divided the Union was on the question of slavery, so we will find out in the next few weeks whether there still remains men and women in the Congress with the wisdom to avert the political fallout by finding a just remedy within the Constitutional provisions (the 12th Amendment) for the bill of complaint Texas had filed with the Supreme Court, or it will be left to President Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces to do what the Constitution and the statutes provide, according to his Oath of Office, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Salim - London North Centre Candidate • People's Party of Canada