U.S. judicial system, SCOTUS exposed as 'highly political'

FPI / December 18, 2020

The 2020 presidential election has exposed a "complete collapse" of the U.S. judiciary as courts refuse to take on unconstitutional actions undertaken by state officials, analysts say.

"The entity usually considered the final and most impartial arbiter of injustice in the country — the court system — now, too, is in on the election fix," Julie Kelly noted in a Dec. 15 op-ed for American Greatness.

Radio and television host Mark Levin unleashed the following on Parler:

"This election has exposed the complete collapse of the judiciary as a check on unconstitutional acts by state officials eviscerating legislative authority under our federal constitution (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2).

"It has also exposed the Supreme Court as a highly political, result-oriented, LIBERAL body that grants standing when it wants to rule on a case (Mass v. EPA) and denies standing when it wants to duck a case (Texas v. PA, et al)."

The politicization of the judiciary was further revealed during a Wednesday hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Jesse Binnall, a Trump-backed attorney, testified during the hearing that his team was thwarted at every turn in Nevada when attempting to seek transparency during their post-election legal fights.

"We were denied (transparency) in Nevada at every single turn," testified Binnall. "The legal system didn't allow for transparency."

"When we tried to obtain testimony or documents from Clark County officials they obstructed and stonewalled, literally dodging subpoenas and refusing to release documents. Even the U.S. Postal Service obstructed our discovery efforts. When we filed suit, state officials and even courts delayed proceedings for days, but then offered us merely hours to brief and argue our cases," Binnall said.

Former Clinton impeachment investigator Ken Starr was invited by Republicans to testify specifically about the state of Pennsylvania's election law changes.

Responding to a question from Senator Rand Paul about the legality of the Pennsylvania secretary of state changing election laws without the approval of state legislatures, Starr said: "The principle here is … [the] Constitution is very clear that it is the prerogative of state legislatures to determine what these rules and laws are, and that was, I must say, flagrantly violated in Pennsylvania, and perhaps elsewhere as well."

Numerous lawsuits have detailed how state election laws, particularly those related to mail-in ballots, were broken.

"One would think that given Biden’s slim margin of victory in three states — only about 250,000 votes separate Biden from President Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — judges sworn to uphold the rule of law might exhibit at least a passing interest in exhausting all the evidence," Kelly noted for American Greatness.

"After all, if Americans can’t depend on the Justice Department or their state attorneys general, Democrats in those three states, or even local Republican leaders to come to the rescue, surely the black-robed referees perched on the bench will step up, right? Wrong. Not only are the courts dismissing lawsuits, judges are setting dangerous precedents that will have more election-eroding consequences later."

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to consider the lawsuit filed Dec. 7 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, subsequently joined by his colleagues in 19 states as well as 126 Republican congressmen and the Trump campaign.

Levin pointed out that the Supreme Court "intervenes relentlessly in state election processes, almost exclusively in support of leftwing activists and Democrat organizations that seek to weaken election security and fraud prevent."

Levin continued: "The Court and inferior federal and state courts have earned the contempt of tens of millions of Americans. While the media, Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and others, have celebrated the denial of substantive court proceedings to scores of petitioners raising fundamental federal and state constitutional issues, not to mention serious questions of fraud in states including, but not limited to Wisconsin and Georgia, these courts have disgraced themselves and severely damaged the electoral process."

"In effect, they have served as the Praetorian Guard for the planned, elaborate, and unlawful acts of the Democrat Party, its lawyers, and their state public officeholders throughout battleground states. Despite the media claiming that 6 of the justices are conservative, and Chuck Schumer's propaganda about his desire to pack the Court because it is supposedly too conservative, the FACT is the opposite.

"When the Court actually upholds the Constitution it is, more often than not, the EXCEPTION to the rule, which for the Court is activism with few limits."

Free Press International