Image 01 Image 03

U.S. Supreme Court Pushes Off Pennsylvania Case Until After Inauguration Day

U.S. Supreme Court Pushes Off Pennsylvania Case Until After Inauguration Day

Jonathan Turley: “Inaugurations are like cats: it is hard to get either to walk backwards.”

During my round up of post-election news on December 21, 2020, I noted a new filing regarding Pennsylvania:

First, the Trump campaign has filed a Petition for A Writ of Certiorari, and related Motion for expedited consideration, with the U.S.Supreme Court. The Petition asks SCOTUS to overturn Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions regarding election procedure. The case can’t change the outcome of the election, because even without PA, Biden still would have sufficient electoral college votes to win. It’s hard to say what SCOTUS will do because many of the procedural problems of prior suits are absent, but it’s also coming up on the January 6 congressional acceptance of the electors. I don’t know why this wasn’t brought weeks ago.

The court docket reflects that the response to the Petition is due January 22, 2021.

That is two days after the Inauguration.

Fox News notes this could make the case moot:

The justices this week set a reply deadline for Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and the other respondents named in the case of Jan. 22. The campaign had asked for the Supreme Court to order those on the other side of the litigation to respond by Wednesday and have reply briefs from the Trump campaign submitted by Thursday. It also asked the court to rule by Jan. 6. But the court did not oblige.

This means that by the time Boockvar and the others the Trump campaign is seeking to take to the Supreme Court even respond to the petition, President-elect Joe Biden will already be sworn in.

At that point, the court could simply decline to hear the case, saying it is moot or impossible for them to resolve at that point….

Which as Jonathan Turley notes, creates a near-impossibility:

Not a good sign when the Supreme Court extends the schedule for argument in the Pennsylvania election challenge beyond Inauguration Day. The reply is not due until Jan. 22nd. Inaugurations are like cats: it is hard to get either to walk backwards.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Trump stood up for them, but they won’t stand up for Trump. Sickening.

    gonzotx in reply to BillyHW. | December 24, 2020 at 7:24 pm

    This 100,000,000^ times

      Add my 100,000,000^ times…

      Ben Kent in reply to gonzotx. | December 24, 2020 at 9:49 pm

      Taxpayers Must Unite. Money = Power. Tax Boycott is the only answer. United – We Win. Here is an organization that is taking action – Union of Taxpayers.
      Parler: @UnionofTaxpayers
      Twitter: @UTaxpaters

        I disagree.
        The second amendment was not contemplated with deer or self defense in mind.

        When an organism of the government becomes tyrannical, a well-organized militia should confront that organism and serve them an order to show cause as to why they shouldn’t be held as tyrants.

        If there is a finding of tyranny, they should be offered the opportunity to resign from all positions of authority over men (meaning people for those of you in Rio Linda) before further corrective action ensues

        This would get me 30 days on Facebook… 🙂

          txvet2 in reply to rduke007. | December 25, 2020 at 6:37 pm

          “This would get me 30 days on Facebook”

          It could get you a lot more than that after Inauguration Day. Leftists have no sense of humor and they think they’re the only ones who can preach sedition.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to BillyHW. | December 24, 2020 at 7:39 pm

    The “supreme court” is irrelevant now.

    They just don’t signify.

    It’s over, folks. There isn’t an institution left in what we knew as America that has not been corrupted, either by bribery (Communist China) or by extortion (Epstein’s ‘catalogue’). Our government – and enough idiots in black robes – is now our oppressor.

    When your government is your oppressor, it’s time to do what our forefathers did: take it back.

    That time has come.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to | December 24, 2020 at 9:20 pm


      Swalwell and the truth of communist infiltration in the USA

      ….Professor Di Dongsheng, gave a speech in Shanghai in which he revealed the extent of Chinese infiltration of the U.S. Di claimed, “We have our old friends who are at the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence.” He even implied that Hunter Biden was the recipient of Chinese aid: “Trump has been saying that Biden’s son has some sort of global foundation. Have you noticed that? Who helped [Hunter] build the foundations? Got it? There are a lot of deals inside all these.” Di relates a story about how he was assisted by a woman, “an old lady with a big nose, obviously a Jew.” She spoke fluent Mandarin and claimed to be a Chinese citizen. He realized that she was what Chinese people call an “old friend.” Di claimed that the woman was in charge of Asian operations for a major Wall Street financial institution. Imagine a major Wall Street financial institution employing an “old friend” to oversee its Asian operations.

      A Chinese sociologist, Dr. Li Yi delivered a speech in October 2020 in which he claimed that China would overtake the U.S. by 2027. Li Yi is also a full-time professor at Renmin University. Yi claimed, “We are ahead of schedule in terms of overtaking the United States. There will be no problem reaching this goal in 2027. The U.S. will not survive.” Why would anyone believe that China would surpass the U.S.? David P. Goldman described China as “ruthless meritocracy.” Ten million high school students take the gaokao (college entrance exam) each year, with math questions a lot tougher than our Graduate Record Examination. The New York Times reported that Chine graduates 600,000 new engineers every year in 2006 as opposed to 70,000 in the U.S. A Duke professor disputed this number and estimates 351,000 engineering graduates. In 2011, the University of California at San Diego created a full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” It already had 18 diversity organizations. At the same time, it announced that it would no longer offer a master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering. Author Scott Johnson claims that his alma mater, Yale, has 150 full-time diversity officers.

      Read more:
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    they should have stuck up for Pres Trump, but the real nasty part is they did not stick up for the law.

    RoyalWulff55 in reply to BillyHW. | December 25, 2020 at 5:59 pm

    Worse, SCOTUS won’t stand up for the law. They’ve once again voiced their support for election fraud.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to BillyHW. | December 25, 2020 at 8:46 pm

    I hope the fires burning on capital hill(the swamp does not deserve even capital letters) can be seen all the way over in Langley, Virginia.

    The right to vote has effectively been stripped from all American citizens. Our votes do not matter.

    When I see the “peaceful protests” up and down the East Coast in the style of General Sherman, I will fly back home to America to join fellow American Patriots to lend a hand.

    I Am Royally Pissed Off!!

    S Allen in reply to BillyHW. | December 26, 2020 at 1:54 pm

    SCOTUS followed the law. Not Trump. Thank God we have some official with morals and a willingness to not follow some crackpot president…

The remedy if any lies in Congress, the courts are opting out.
We have an election system that’s designed not to be auditable.

    jhkrischel in reply to rhhardin. | December 24, 2020 at 7:59 pm

    I think the remedy lies with Pence. He can decide which votes to count, and if anyone disagrees, they can file suit against him in SCOTUS…which, if pattern holds, will promptly docket it for 1/21/2021.

      Dimsdale in reply to jhkrischel. | December 24, 2020 at 8:25 pm

      I hope you are right, that he and some brave Congresspeople have the guts to stand up to this farce.

      I am saddened by the SCOTUS; they have abandoned their responsibility as far as I can see. You would think that this would be important enough to address immediately, but they do not think so.

      Even if they decide that there was, in fact, massive fraud in the system, it will be too late.

      Well, at least they are good at finding things that aren’t in the Constitution, like infanticide. I guess the left can stop worrying about their legislation through the judiciary.

      It seems to be intact.

        mark311 in reply to Dimsdale. | December 25, 2020 at 3:50 am

        The courts have to assess the legal arguments and the facts presented to them. Since the evidence presented was utterly weak they didn’t have much choice but to dismiss the various cases. The legal arguments and remedies asked for have also not helped in some of the cases.

          alaskabob in reply to mark311. | December 25, 2020 at 10:16 am

          In altering the voting process the courts, such as in Penn, created !aw…ignoring the Constitutional limits of their role. They became a “legislative” body which is unconstitutional. pretty straight forward issue .

          Edward in reply to mark311. | December 25, 2020 at 1:45 pm

          Alaska Bob – Mark311 expected the Trump lawyers to drag the Socialist/Communist Party judges into court with their brief. Since they didn’t do that, there isn’t enough evidence in Mark311’s explication of the talking points.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | December 26, 2020 at 5:32 am

          @alaska bob

          If there was a question mark over the legal process then this should have been litigated against at the time of that legal change instead they waited until after the election when the remedy was distinctly out of proportion with the alleged grievance. They didn’t change the law, the merely pointed out that he argument presented was wholely flawed and unacceptable. I’ve yet to see a coherent argument for this alleged fraud .. if you have a decent source I’d be happy to look at it

          S Allen in reply to mark311. | December 26, 2020 at 1:49 pm

          Right. There is no real evidence of fraud but so many want to say there is. Saying it is not proving it. People seem to be fine with destroying our democratic processes in the constitution just so their guy wins. It’s scary times for our country…

      Obviously incorrect. If Pence chooses not to accept electoral votes from any state that Biden won, SCOTUS will issue an immediate injunction against, without even waiting for anyone to file.

      They’re more interested in the outcome than they are in the Constitution.

        mark311 in reply to irv. | December 25, 2020 at 7:43 am

        Obviously incorrect? On what basis? Looking at the detail every argument presented trying to establish wide scale voter fraud has failed.

      That assuming that Pence isn’t a squish

      That would represent the final opportunity for the corrupt and feckless GOP and patriotic Dems to do the right thing. Pence should at least go down swinging. If history informs us, the Republicans will form a “gang of ….” and fall just one vote short. Again.

      There is no such thing as a Republican ruling majority. Even if we had 100 GOP senators, the Dems would win by one vote.

    What election system? It’s rigged. We’ve learned it’s BEEN rigged for some time now.

    Time to talk divorce, or endure enslavement.

The courts are as corrupt as the rest of the government. There is only one solution. Take it Mr. President.

The Social Club of the United States has (not) spoken. Only the Democrat Party has standing now in this country. The Founding Fathers wanted to consider the Supreme Court as the weakest of the three branches (that’s “chambers” to AOC). They are not weak, just spineless unless it is to rubber-stamp future progressive laws. I can easily see them dropping the case as “moot” once Biden is sworn in.

You live by “the law” … you perish by it also. The Court may think it can patchwork fixes around this stolen election. The Allegheny election officials, in ignoring Alito’s order to sequester votes, has paved the way for ignoring the Court. Officials in Arizona ignored court orders.

I don’t admire the courts now, but I do fear them as a tool for future oppression. I guess that is the level of “respect” they will demand from us. How far left of Lenin and how close to Mao they go… we will have to see. A parting comment by John Wilkes Booth after paralyzed.. and looking at his denervated arms.. brings the same word to mind… “useless”.

Apparently a massive fraud and coup d’etat is of low priority to the courts. Our system of checks and balances just isn’t working anymore.

I want the Ds to commit to what remedy should be applied if we discover incontrovertible evidence, adjudicated by the courts, that the election was stolen. Will they advocate for a special election? An immediate “detransition” back to Trump? An impeachment of both POTUS and VP, and giving the presidency to the speaker of the house?

If there is no penalty, there’s nothing to stop it from happening again and again and again.

    henrybowman in reply to jhkrischel. | December 24, 2020 at 8:17 pm

    Yeah, like giving the presidency to the Speaker is a penalty.
    Please, please, Br’er Bear, don’ throw me inter that briar patch!

      Arminius in reply to henrybowman. | December 25, 2020 at 6:06 pm

      The 1947 Presidential Succession Act (amended in 2006) that designates the Speaker of the House as third in line for the Presidency is clearly unconstitutional.

      U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 6: “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President declaring what OFFICER shall then act as President, and such OFFICER shall act accordingly until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

      The language of the Constitution makes it clear that an OFFICER of the United States is an appointed and confirmed official of the executive branch (or possibly of the judicial branch) who is “is invested by legal authority with a portion of the sovereign powers of the federal government.” And that ain’t Pelosi.

      U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and ALL other OFFICERS of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

      Say hello to President Pompeo.

    Oh, come on!

    It’s over! The inmates are running the asylum, and they will NEVER let go. Our very lives are in danger now.

    We have to get the hell out.

Pence should refuse to count votes from the contested states, and dare someone to sue him in court. Then the SCOTUS can simply docket that for January 21, 2021.

If the SCOTUS can’t stop states from stealing elections, they damn well don’t have the power to stop Pence from counting the votes any way he wants to.

Apparently, there is never a Justice around when you need one, either.
These guys still pulling paychecks? For what?

As a Pennsylvanian been screwed by this court, my Supreme Court and the SoS Kathy Boockvar.
The state Legislature was my only hope and they ran and hid.

    MarkS in reply to Skip. | December 25, 2020 at 4:51 am

    That’s what Republican do!

    ronk in reply to Skip. | December 25, 2020 at 6:06 am

    I wouldn’t be that harsh are the legislature, they don’t matter to the PA court system. the court overruled the legislature on the signatures for the mail in ballots, they didn’t like how the legislature drew up the congressional districts so they did it themselves. the court system in PA is as corrupt as they come, probably exceeded by the IL court system

As I wrote on another thread, the Constitutionalists failed us.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Skip. | December 24, 2020 at 8:21 pm

    That word is pronounced “communists.”

    randian in reply to Skip. | December 25, 2020 at 2:14 am

    The total lack of loyalty to Trump by Trump’s appointees is disturbing. You never see that kind of disloyalty by Democrat appointees.

      This is a legal blog…read up on the law before commenting. There is NO loyalty oath that judges / justices swear before being seated on the bench.

      mark311 in reply to randian. | December 25, 2020 at 7:46 am

      Loyalty has NOTHING to do with it. In fact the very idea that loyalty is the means by which a court makes a decision is fundamentally undemocratic. The basis of the decision making is legal and factual which has been proven time and time again that the level of fraud was minimal if not non existant

        randian in reply to mark311. | December 25, 2020 at 8:57 am

        You make an unwarranted assumption: that rejection proves the facts were nonexistent.

          mark311 in reply to randian. | December 25, 2020 at 10:23 am

          That’s how the burden of proof works, the legal action needed to show fraud. That isn’t assumption that’s just logical. The door is open for me for evidence to change my mind, for the courts it’s to little too late. The door is shut. The best one can hope for is a case for reform. That would be a productive route , if there was genuinely fraud then it should be shown to promote proper electoral reform. That’s a political route requiring proper research with reliable sources, and coherent evidence. At this stage that doesn’t really exist.

So does that mean that SCOTUS favors using the Insurrection Act to postpone the inauguration? Seems that way to me. Way to go CJ John Roberts!

    I don’t think anyone can cite a Supreme Court justice that has been suspected of being compromised, other than John Roberts.

      What alternative explanation would you suggest? Not even a little bit of loyalty is being show to Trump by the Justices he appointed, or by allegedly Republican justices appointed by earlier Presidents.

        Loyalty?? What the heck does loyalty have to do with deciding cases according to the law? Read the oath the justices take upon being confirmed to the Court. It’s not a promise of loyalty to the President that nominated them. For heaven’s sake, this is a legal blog…it helps if you have a basic understanding of the law and Constitution before commenting. Or, simply read Professor Jacobson’s articles and try to comprehend them. He never, ever once mentions that judges / justices should decide a case based on loyalty to anything but the facts as presented in court (NOT the media), the law, and the Constitution.

          WestRock in reply to RNJD. | December 25, 2020 at 8:12 am

          This is a legal blog…read up on the law before commenting. There is NO loyalty oath that judges / justices swear before being seated on the bench.

          I’m a little confused here. Do they (judges and justices), or do they not, take an oath of loyalty to uphold and protect the Constitution?

SCOTUS is a disgrace. They are not even reading the pleadings because doing so would grant knowledge of the fraud, and that is what they are terrified of. They think this fraud will rectify itself….there is no way for it to do so. These programmable, fraudulent in every aspect, voting systems will turn America into 1984…..a tyranny of civil servants and bankers…..always descending into a lower standard of living for all but a very few….a continuum of race wars, sex wars, religious wars, and a vast population of people too stupid to read an analog watch or write in cursive….perhaps not able to write at all….as we already see in sectors of the black and immigrant community.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 24, 2020 at 9:12 pm


December 24, 2020

China facing massive food shortages, introduces bill to regulate eating

    There is no evidence China is suffering food shortages of any degree. Food prices in China are decreasing, not increasing. There is no evidence of starvation or malnutrition. China is just on the leading edge of high-tech totalitarianisms, which our cancel culture warriors and government seems enamored with. These controls are part and parcel with their desire to manage all aspects of every person’s existence. This is why the story is frightening.

Conservative Beaner | December 24, 2020 at 9:16 pm

Time to stop calling them Justices because the are nothing more than politicians now. With the possible exceptions of Alito and Thomas they should stop wearing robes and start wearing business suits while the court is in session.

Their arrogance is breathtaking.

The “justices” we’ve seen go on the Court the last few years suddenly change into what our enemies want them to be. What other explanation can there be but extortion? Telling someone there will never be a next generation in his family, unless he “does right,” would be an attention getter.

    Alternate explanation: They take their judicial oath seriously: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” 28 U.S. Code § 453.

      MarkS in reply to RNJD. | December 25, 2020 at 4:56 am

      You gotta do better than that

        RNJD in reply to MarkS. | December 25, 2020 at 5:07 am

        Yeah, citing the law and relying on the confirmation process to select federal judges / justices is sort of the easy way out. Perhaps they should have taken their oaths while laying their hands on a copy of “The Art of the Deal”. That would have been sooo much better given what some of you are expecting from them now.

The election didn’t hang itself.

Some of you may recall the movie (and play) “Best Little Whorehouse In Texas”. In the movie a rather rotund Charles Durning played the Governor of Texas. His big musical number was “Side Stepping”. The Governor liked to avoid tough decisions or responsibility. So “side stepping” was the name of his game. John Roberts is not as fat as Charles Durning was at the time–but he is equally adept at side steppping. Well now, this is a tough decision here–but say, isn’t it moot, since the Inauguration has already happened? Tsk tsk–we woulda coulda shoulda done something–maybe, but times up! So we don’t have to decide. Pretty shoddy work there John.

Trump apparently does not know that he doesn’t have to wait for any court rulings to act, that under the Article IV guarantee that the states shall have a republican form of government he can on his own authority do whatever is needed to thwart and expunge the blatantly unrepublican phony elections in PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ and NV.

SCOTUS being useless makes it all the more clear that it is the president who must act, but this was clear from the outset because SCOTUS long ago deemed the guarantee clause nonjusticiable, meaning that they decided that THEY cannot enforce it.

That does NOT mean that the other branches cannot enforce it. Just the opposite. The Court’s reason for demurring was that guarantee clause claims were being brought before it that raised “political questions” that the Court decided could ONLY be resolved by the political branches.

By quirk of history the political branches have never invoked the guarantee clause, perhaps leading Trump’s lawyers to presume that this avenue is not open to the president. Or in AG Barr’s case it seems likely that he has not wanted President Trump to know that he can use the clause to save the nation, since his objective is apparently to save the gang of criminal coup conspirators at DOJ/FBI/CIA instead.

In fact the republican guarantee is the most powerful and fundamental clause in the entire Constitution, empowering WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to keep our republican form of government, where the people are sovereign, where OUR will rules, from being usurped by any tyrant or fraudulent vote counters.

That is because if any necessary measure for saving the republic is held to be off limits then the guarantee fails to be a guarantee. Thus use of the word guarantee gives the clause priority over every other constitutional concern. It has been said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact and this is the clause that makes this explicit: when the republic itself is at stake all necessary steps to preserve it are empowered.

Trump should immediately declare that the federal government will step in and use the military to re-run the 2020 general elections in the tainted states. This will necessarily delay the finalization of the presidential selection process. The order should set out an anticipated schedule for conducting the new elections, which would probably take a few months at least, then there would have to be the usual couple of months for election challenges to again be heard, for the electoral college process to again be worked through, etcetera.

The 20th Amendment already establishes what is to happen in case of such a delay: Pence would be sworn in on January 20th and serve as POTUS until the new president can be selected and inaugurated.

This HAS to happen. The Democrats spent sixty-plus years building election systems that are ever more vulnerable to massive election fraud. Have you seen what CA did with Motor Voter and drivers licenses for illegal aliens? They automatically registered illegals then made it illegal for anyone to check whether the illegals are voting.

Under Trump’s presidency the Democrats quadrupled their election stealing arrangement. Almost all Democrat states now use electronic voting/tabulating machines designed by communist regimes for the express purpose of stealing elections. Then there is the mass mailing of multiple ballot applications and ballots to every address in a state with almost no verification requirements for voting these ballots, then they put out drop boxes for returning these millions of out-of-custody ballots.

The evidence that this super-charged election stealing machinery did indeed steal the election is massive, with hundreds of sworn affidavits of observers kicked out, huge late dumps of ballots almost all for Biden, election machines switching votes en masse from Trump to Biden, unequal treatment of Trump voters, etcetera.

If this rigged unrepublican form of election is allowed to steal the 2020 races for the Democrats then all of their massively built up machinery for stealing elections will be cemented in place and even enhanced so that there will be no more chance of honest elections going forward than there was in Russia under Stalin.

We will just be one more communist dictatorship with phony elections. Our republic will be dead, which the guarantee clause does not allow. President Trump has a constitutional duty to step up now and ORDER a stop to the steal. This isn’t the job of the courts. It is the job of the president and We the People need it to be done immediately.

Since almost NOBODY understands the centrality of the republican guarantee I would ask anyone reading this to please try to pass the word that Trump can and must use his inherent power under the guarantee clause to stop the steal. Re-running elections is the obvious step because any use of the republican guarantee must itself be spotlessly republican in its objectives. Running model open and honest elections would achieve that, guaranteeing that it is the will of the people, not the will of the vote counters, that determines which direction we take our of our current predicament.

Merry Christmas, and may we all have a republican New Year!

One of my posts on the republican guarantee here:

    Close The Fed in reply to AlecRawls. | December 25, 2020 at 1:32 am

    Outstanding post.

    I disagree that new elections are the only republican form of selection of Pres.

    He could instead accept designations from state legislatures as the constitution provides.

    A new election, with the same people in place to run them? Don’t see integrity with that process.

      AlecRawls in reply to Close The Fed. | December 25, 2020 at 2:19 am

      Yes, Trump could try to use the republican guarantee to throw the selection to Congress, as the Constitution already provides, but they would provide no relief for any down ballot races which are also at issue. Then there is the need for any enforcement of the guarantee clause to be clearly republican in the remedy it seeks, and the most republican remedy is to hear from the voters directly and verify their actual preferences.

      As for who would conduct the re-runs, it would not be same rigged systems that stole the November elections. Trump would need to order that the feds conduct the elections, which would probably mean the military. No other arm has the manpower or the integrity.

    Close The Fed in reply to AlecRawls. | December 25, 2020 at 1:37 am

    A side note: I’m reading your post at Flopping Aces, and the lightness/narrowness of the font makes it hard to read.

    randian in reply to AlecRawls. | December 25, 2020 at 2:19 am

    SCOTUS nullified that guarantee by ruling that it isn’t justiciable.

      AlecRawls in reply to randian. | December 25, 2020 at 2:23 am

      Nonjusticiability only means that the Court has decided that THEY can’t enforce the guarantee clause.

      They are wrong about that actually. Radically wrong. They should have been using it all along to prevent any party from putting in place election systems that are substantially vulnerable to vote fraud and election fraud, never mind intentionally massively vulnerable.

        randian in reply to AlecRawls. | December 25, 2020 at 2:42 am

        If they can’t enforce it then nobody will. A state isn’t going to enforce it against itself.

          Close The Fed in reply to randian. | December 25, 2020 at 8:25 am

          You have divided state governments:

          Dem govs, Gop legislatures.

          So they could enforce it against themselves, if some GOPers had the guts to stand up to doxxing, having their cars keyed, and their families harassed.

    Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | December 25, 2020 at 7:41 am

    This is wrong for a number of reasons.

    1. The Republican Guarantee clause applies to the states, not to the union. It requires the state governments to be structured as republics, rather than as monarchies, as direct democracies, etc. The union’s own form of government isn’t covered by this because the constitution already makes it a republic; the only way to prevent the change that would be to amend the constitution, and any such amendment would of course override the “guarantee” if there were one.

    2. The clause has little to do with the conduct of elections. It addresses the structure of the government. States have to have elected legislatures and governors. How they run their elections is not necessarily a part of that. That’s what the Rhode Island revolt was about, and the supreme court left it unresolved.

    3. The clause does not “empower WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to keep our republican form of government”. It doesn’t empower anything. It charges the USA (which the supreme court said means the political branches thereof) to make sure each state remains a republic, but they can only do so using their existing powers. The clause doesn’t give them any extra powers. So for instance, in the Rhode Island revolt, the congress could have refused to seat the congressmen elected in RI’s official elections, and seated instead the ones elected by the rebels. But it chose not to. But nobody in that case claimed that this clause gave anyone any extra powers.

    4. The military have no role in running elections. It has no authority to do so, and the president can’t give it such authority.

    5. Supposing there was no president elected by January 20, Pence would not take over, because he would no longer be vice president. Instead Pelosi would temporarily take over, since she would be speaker, having been chosen by the incoming house.

      mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2020 at 7:52 am

      @ Millhouse really interesting thank you

      Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | December 25, 2020 at 8:27 am

      Milhouse reveals his severe case of Law-itis, over and over and over and over again.

      If there is no remedy, I’m out. Uninterested in a suicide pact, where China and the musslemen end up my masters, with an Asian Indian whore implementing their agenda here.

        If you offer a legal argument you have to accept that it will be analyzed as such. If you’re not interested in the law then don’t make legal arguments. Just call for an armed revolution and be done with it.

        Lawitus? Seriously this is a legal blog if you don’t have an interest in the law and how it operated why are you even on this site?

      AlecRawls in reply to Milhouse. | December 27, 2020 at 3:02 am

      “The Republican Guarantee clause applies to the states, not to the union.”

      It is the state governments that have become unrepublican by the act of conducting fraudulent elections: elections that are intentionally vulnerable to mass election fraud (itself a violation of republicanism), and in which extensive fraud is strongly evidenced to have occurred.

      The entity that is called upon to enforce the guarantee is “The United States,” which means first of all the president (especially since SCOTUS has said “don’t look at us”), and the fact that it is a guarantee implies that all necessary means are empowered.

      This does not involve any “extra powers” beyond those created by the Constitution. It IS a power created by the Constitution.

    mark311 in reply to AlecRawls. | December 25, 2020 at 7:50 am

    Your argument doesn’t work. The elections were a republican form of election. He would end up going to court trying to prove what he has failed to prove before.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | December 25, 2020 at 8:25 pm

      The argument does not work for a number of reasons. However, if elections are a farce, and not, indeed, valid elections, then those in office are not representative of the people, and there is no republican form of government. Fraudulent elections are an abrogation of any republican form of governance. A fraudulent election is not an election. It’s just a fraud committed upon the people. Nothing more.

        Which was the second part of my point. It goes back to proving that the election was fraudulent which to date has been less than successful

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | December 26, 2020 at 10:18 am

          It is the burden of proof for the accuser to prove his proposition. However, to deny there are many aspects of this election that defy rational explanation or that require in depth investigation is to deny what can be seen easily. Examples include vote tallies that switched votes on air before everyone’s very eyes. There may be valid explanations for these, but to date, none are offered except a general excuse that some mistake was made without further explanation of how such mistakes were made, or assurances others existed without correction.

          In Georgia, counting was suspended in the night due to a watermain break, which never existed. Everyone was sent home, except for a small group of people who remained behind, and after all others had left, pulled boxes of ballots hidden under draped tables and continued counting and tallying without supervision, after which, Biden gains huge vote totals from this very spot of what can only be termed as suspicious activity.
          In Virginia, hundreds of thousands of votes were simply erased. One erasure corrected a huge jump in Biden votes of over 300,000 votes, this is true, but others, made no such “correction” but were simple outright massive vote subtractions from the tabulation. But how and why did mistakes of this magnitude occur?

          This, and many more odd instances, all deserves more than just a blow off, but a deep and complete investigation until a satisfactory explanation is provided. And, people have the right to ask, even demand, such investigation until they are indeed satisfied with the answers provided.

          If you find this curiosity tiresome, then you may wish to wander off and apply your time to some other pursuit. But the maintenance of a fair and transparent system of elections is vital to the core of our political and societal health. The frustration is that many in certain predictable corridors do not want this transparency or investigation, and erect every means to belittle, stifle and block even the asking of such questions, which all leads to even greater and growing suspicion and distrust.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | December 26, 2020 at 10:37 am

          @brave sir robbin

          All these examples have been looked at and each time a reasonable and logical explanation has been given. I’d agree that a thorough investigation would be sensible bit done by neutral third parties. One of the reasons the courts have given so little time and such damning conclusions to the cases this far is because the evidence is half baked conspiracy theories, deranged lawyers, equally as deranged witnesses , witnesses that turned out that they weren’t witnesses, witnesses that weren’t actually there at all, forensic reports written by idiots not knowing basic facts and cases being presented to the public that bore no resemblance to the ones being presented to the actual court. I’ll happily look at any source that you provide that given a detailed knowledgeable take on the election process. So far when I’ve asked this not a single source has been provided that actually analysis the election fraud and provided a clear coherent argument, in fact I haven’t been presented with a source at all.

      AlecRawls in reply to mark311. | December 27, 2020 at 3:31 am

      Marc311 says that Trump “would end up going to court trying to prove what he has failed to prove before.”

      He would end up in court, but under very different circumstances. Instead of being the one who is suing for relief he would getting sued by the states whose election systems he is invalidating on the grounds that they are unrepublican.

      The Supreme Court’s view of the guarantee clause so far has been that it is for the political branches, not the Court, to decide what is and is not republican. Thus the conservative judicial reticence now at work on the Court flips to the other side.

      Where in Texas v. PA judicial reticence worked against the Court stepping in to give credence to Texas’ claims, now it would work against the Court stepping in to give credence to the claims of PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, NV et. al.

      In addition, SCOTUS is dead wrong about the guarantee clause being nonjusticiable. There is a ton of stuff they should have been doing under the republican guarantee. For instance they should have been declaring any election systems that introduce unnecessary vulnerabilities to election fraud (like using voting/tabulating machines designed by communist regimes for the express purpose of stealing elections) to be in violation the republican guarantee, since they make republican elections very difficult to guarantee.

      In short, if SCOTUS had been doing its job we would never have gotten in the present predicament in the first place. Thus if the Court did decide, when faced with presidential enforcement action, that the republican guarantee is not nonjusticiable and that they do not need to say “sorry petitioners, don’t look at us,” the Court would then be confronted with the horrific consequences of its own neglect and would have every reason to support the president’s enforcement actions.

        mark311 in reply to AlecRawls. | December 30, 2020 at 5:30 am

        It was just reticence on the courts part it’s the fact that the evidence for fraud is so poor that it’s actually a gigantic waste of time. If the case presented to the courts had been any more moronic the judges may have actually sanctioned the Trump legal teams. That said an interested legal argument

After 63 (the real number doesn’t actually matter) failed lawsuits, who actually expected number 64 to be any different?

Trump should follow through on his Tweet ( and use the power of the co-equal Executive Branch since the Judicial Branch has either joined with the other side or abdicated its role.

The Great Election Theft of 2020 is ultimately nothing more than a case of document fraud – something the Executive Branch has every authority to investigate.

The only difference is that this case involves fraudulent ballots instead of bonds, deeds and checks.

President Trump should appoint a Special Counsel (someone like Jesse Binnall) who will treat this as a simple law enforcement matter to be resolved as swiftly as possible.

The evidence so far collected that judges have dodged, rejected or dismissed without a moment of investigation or discovery provide a lot of material that can go into a probable cause statement.

As in any fake document case, all you need to do is figure out the fake from the real, or vice versa.

This is just on a larger scale.

And it’s actually very very doable.

Machines exist today that tell if an absentee ballot was produced by an authorized printshop with the required security features, whether it ever entered the postal system and whether the voting marks on the ballot were made by a human being or another machine. And they can process hundreds of thousands of ballots per day.

A Special Counsel can bring them (ballots and forensic machines) together and provide some much needed answers.

Watch (Go to 9:10):

    Most of the fraudulent votes you shouldn’t even have to submit to analysis. They were the product of a corrupt process i.e. were counted without observers in violation of the law. They should be summarily rejected.

      mark311 in reply to randian. | December 26, 2020 at 3:42 pm

      Actually there is no legal requirement for observers. This is discussed in the Pennsylvania case.

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | December 27, 2020 at 2:34 am

        There can’t be a legal requirement to have observers, because if a candidate chooses not to send any that’s hardly the board of election’s fault. You can’t expect it to stop counting just because one of the candidates either couldn’t get enough volunteers or just couldn’t be bothered sending any. But if a candidate in an election does send observers then it is a legal requirement that they be allowed to observe the count, and that means in a meaningful way, where they can see each ballot up close.

        So if it is true that the board of elections in Atlanta told the observers they had to leave, then it was illegal for counting to continue. Of course the board denies that it ever told them that, and I’ve not seen any evidence that it is lying.

          AlecRawls in reply to Milhouse. | December 27, 2020 at 3:46 am

          Affidavits from observers attesting that they were told to clear out because the the office was shutting down for the night are not “no evidence.” Milhouse sounds like CNN.

          randian in reply to Milhouse. | December 27, 2020 at 11:11 am

          Of course the board denies that it ever told them that, and I’ve not seen any evidence that it is lying.

          Now you’re just being disingenuous. They are obviously lying. It is clear on the video that the board employees walk up to the observers and then the observers all leave. So the board walks up, says nothing, and walks away? Why? Because they like doing pointless things? And then the observers bizarrely decide to leave, all at once? A coprophage wouldn’t accept the manure you’re shoveling.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | December 30, 2020 at 5:33 am

          Interesting point

    The attorney general would have to agree to a special counsel otherwise they wouldn’t have the same resources or powers. Trump can’t do it unilaterally as far as I understand

The Little Bitty Court has shown us that it lacks both courage and wisdom. That, along with our corrupt government schools, corrupt government elections and corrupt government ethics and morality demonstrates that we, the citizens of the United States, are on our own; there is no surviving law.

Cowards. Nine simpering cowards.

    Grrr8 American in reply to clayusmcret. | December 25, 2020 at 11:02 am

    I believe that you give them too much credit. It appears to me that most of them (perhaps all of them) are in on the coup. Whether by inclination, or blackmail, or both.

    One does not get on the Supreme Court without more than enough baseline intelligence to realize that allowing this coup-via-election-fraud to stand will mark the end of the Republic. For, among other reasons, once in power the Democratic Socialists will further embed the mechanisms of fraud, and so we will cease being a “democracy” other than in the sense of a “Peoples’ Democracy'” / “Peoples’ Republic.”

    They have lifetime appointments, and are approaching the end of life so have little to lose. This extends way beyond cowardice — it’s well into knowing culpability with treason. Perhaps even having been involved with the “Transition Integrity Project” and related plotting in preparation to execute this coup.

No need to pack the Supreme Court then.

1. The 2020 election theft is evidently too big to steal. The same way that Epstein’s book of clients was too big to reveal.

2. We have the best branches of government money can buy.

3. Are the Barrs any better than the Holders, or just more clever?

1. The 2020 election theft is evidently too big to reverse. The same way that Epstein’s book of clients was too big to reveal.

2. We have the best branches of government money can buy.

3. Are the Barrs any better than the Holders, or just more clever?

Corrupt all the way up to and including the Supreme Court. And they think the people are too stupid to figure it out. F.U. Roberts.

So this will be another “Yes it happened but it’s to late now to do anything about it.”

I’m grateful to see our democracy holding and the law holding strong to keep Trump from stealing an election where he did not win. There is no evidence of any fraud that would change the outcome of this election. Voter fraud is not widespread and insidious like Trump claims, if there was we would all see the evidence by now. I wanted them to show us any evidence, but they cannot, because there is very little, only his madly exaggerated claims. Good riddance to one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. What a loser, in every sense of the word…

A large, imposing building with marble (?) columns, a dais, somber Justices in black robes, many words written and uttered with a generous smattering of Latin phraseology thrown in for additional gravitas, pontification, citations, references and, at the end of the day a cheap bureaucratic trick with the calendar as befitting a clerk down at the bureau of licenses and registrations……..

or so it seems.