At CPAC, Trump slammed 'gutless’ Supreme Court

FPI / March 2, 2021

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday blasted the Supreme Court for refusing to hear cases regarding the disputed 2020 presidential election.

"We have a very sick and corrupt electoral process," Trump said on Sunday at CPAC 2021. "This election was rigged and the Supreme Court ... didn't want to do anything about it. They didn't have the courage to act. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they've done to our country. ... They didn't have the guts to do what should be done. And that's on top of all the other forms of cheating."

"Our election process is worse than that in many cases of third-world countries, you know that, you saw what was going on," Trump said."Even if you consider nothing else, it is undeniable that election rules were illegally changed at the last minute and almost every swing state with the procedures rewritten by local politicians, you’re not allowed to do that, and local judges."

Last week, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 not to hear a Pennsylvania case that charged the state government and courts with usurping the state legislature in changing rules for mail in-ballots and voting deadlines. The high court ruled the case was moot because the election is over.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the matter must be addressed for future elections to have credibility.

"One wonders what the Court waits for," Thomas wrote. "We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence."

While observers noted that Thomas was one of the few justices to show backbone when it comes to election integrity, it was pointed out that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, has suddenly lost his backbone.

Prior to the November election, Kavanaugh had joined Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch in siding with Pennsylvania Republicans in their emergency bid to roll back voter accommodations that Trump alleged were illegal.

Anthony Sanders, of the libertarian Institute for Justice, said the conservative justices’ dissents appeared aimed at Kavanaugh’s apparent flip-flop.

“Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch seem pretty ‘befuddled’ & ‘baffled’ at Justice Kavanaugh today,” Sanders tweeted. “He voted with them to take a case on the scope of the ‘legislature clause’ last fall, but strangely is absent in granting cert in the Pennsylvania case."

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board also called out Kavanaugh in an article blasting the court for failing to end what it described as “election anarchy.”

“Where did Justice Brett Kavanaugh wander off to, since he was the fourth vote in October?” the editorial board wrote.

Writing for American Greatness, Julie Kelly accused Kavanaugh of cowardice in the face of pressure from Democrats and the corporate media.

“One can only assume since Kavanaugh changed his pre-election position on Pennsylvania, threats of promoting a ‘Big Lie’ about election fraud got to him,” Kelly wrote.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero, president of Caucus for America, noted in a Feb. 26 op-ed for American Thinker noted how the dream of a truly conservative Supreme Court is quickly dying out thanks first to Chief Justice John Roberts, and now to intellectual conservative but social liberal Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh.

"I have traveled over 800 miles, paid for motels, and over the years took off work so as to help these nominees become confirmed justices. Like so many others on our side, we believed in them. Finally, strong justices, conservative like us. The Court was finally ours… a dream come true," Spero wrote. "Well, the dream has died and our hopes for the Great Cause have not been respected by those in whose behalf we so tirelessly worked."

First, Spero noted, the Roberts/Kavanaugh/Barrett trio did not agree to take the Texas case brought by the AGs of Texas and many other states, which was supported by 100 Congressional representatives. The case "logically asserted that the voters of their respective states had been disenfranchised by the illegalities of those states that had twisted their election laws to guarantee a national Democrat electoral victory, effectively nullifying a fair election result for those voting in other states."

Together with the pre-disposed liberals, Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett said Texas had “no standing.”

The Pennsylvania case, Spero noted, "was the most egregious of all. Pennsylvania’s civil servants and courts brazenly nullified the wishes of the state legislature. State legislatures have been given full and final say-so by the U.S. Constitution over election matters. The Republican legislature was stripped of its constitutional authority by local Democrats, culminating in allowing ballots where addresses and signatures were not verified or postmarked and allowed entry even three days after the election. Yet, the trio and other liberals on the Court said: 'Until the actual infraction happens, the case is not actionable.' Yet another excuse allowing the Democrats to cheat as they brazenly did."

Spero continued: Perhaps, Barrett and Kavanaugh do not want to be seen or be considered part of the Trump camp, nor be blasted in the headlines of the New York Times and Washington Post. Kavanaugh was thrashed and burned by Democrats during his confirmation hearing and may have learned the lesson they were warning him: Don’t do anything that will thwart us politically or we will again come after you and your family via headlines. A traumatized Stockholm Syndrome victim. Perhaps, Mrs. Barrett wants her children to be accepted in certain Ivy or second-tier influential schools. There is a price to be accepted for that entry: part of your soul.

In Yiddish, Spero noted, there is an expression: “der finer mentschen.” It means those who are not willing to get their hands too dirty, like a Romney or Toomey. I hope I’m wrong, but I think these two rarified conservative justices may be from that type, a little too antiseptic and self-conscious to fight the earthy fights. They’ll give us a bone, but not raw meat. Next time, I’ll be looking for a John Wayne-type justice before I travel 800 miles to help.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected two mandamus petitions that Sidney Powell and other lawyers filed in late December. The cases took issue with the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin.

“The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied,” the court said Monday.

That’s it, that was the order.

The petitions presented four questions for the court to answer:

A. Whether presidential electors have standing to challenge the outcome of a presidential election for fraud and illegality that cause the defeat of their candidate?

B. Whether federal courts have and should exercise jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over claims by presidential electors that the presidential election was stolen from them by fraud and illegality under color law in violation of their constitutional rights under the Elections and Electors, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution?

C. Whether a claim by presidential electors to de-certify the results of a presidential election and enjoin voting in the electoral college by the rival slate of electors is barred by laches when it is brought within the state law statute of limitations for post-certification election contests, and before the post recount re- certification?

D. Whether the remedial powers of a federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 include invalidation of an unconstitutionally conducted election, and an injunction against presidential electors appointed in such an election from voting in the electoral college?

The Supreme Court didn't answer any of those questions or bother to explain why it didn't answer.

Free Press International