By Rich Kozlovich Updated *2:02 PM, and **3:15 PM, 12/11/20
I subscribe to, or regularly read, a number of sites daily. Some of them general news, some science related, some are exclusively geopolitical, which are the most varied, and interesting because they cover things you will never see on any other site. Also, I find many working on these sites are really bright people, well informed, insightful, and yet, they unfortunately have views that boggle my mind.
Recently I got involved in an e-mail exchange with one of the heads of a site who firmly believes Biden really is the President elect and will be sworn in on January 21st. He believes there will be a reversal to the Republicans in 2024. He believes Biden's election will bring back a sense of normalcy to politics.
It boggles my mind that really smart, well connected, highly educated, well informed people who are at the center of the information world can hold some of the views they do. He's not alone either. If Biden, a man who raised more dead the Jesus Christ, is sworn in there will no longer be elections as we know them in the United States ever again. There will be no reversal in 2024 or any other date.
Years ago I read a book about Robert the Bruce and in the book one of his sons was denigrating Edward I, King of England, commonly known as Longshanks. The Bruce chastised him saying that Longshanks had been a Knight of Chivalry longer than he's been alive. Why's that important? Because, as the author pointed out, the nobility of Europe had more in common with each other than they did the people they ruled.
Forget the movie representations about Richard the Lion Heart, King of England. He was rarely there and didn't even speak English. He spoke French.
I find this isn't just an issue with "nobility". That mentality permeates a huge cross section of humanity, involving academia, industry, politics, trade associations, media, etc, you get the picture. The problem is people begin to see what they want to see, and believe they are actually seeing what they believe.
That's a logical fallacy mindset, Argumentum ad populum: Everyone believes it so it must be true, which is linked to the Bandwagon fallacy. Then there's the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Prominent people believe it so it must be true. And there are more, but I think that's sufficient.
Well, this morning the news got better. Since Texas filed its lawsuit with the Supreme Court against four states for violating the Constitution regarding voting law violations in their states, things have been looking up.
Proving fraud is important, but how do you reverse all these votes? Since the states can pretty much run elections in their states as they see fit, it creates an issue regarding the federal judiciary getting involved. But this case is different. This case is a case where one state is suing another, and in fact four other states, and it involves Constitutional issues. According the Constitution, the Supreme Court has singular and total jurisdiction in such a case, and only SCOTUS can hear and/or adjudicate this case.
And that's the rub isn't it. Will they hear it? (Note: See update below. RK).
When this started out Texas was all alone. Then four other states joined. Then it was six. Then it was 13, and even Pennsylvania House Leaders File Brief to Support Texas in Supreme Court Lawsuit Against Pennsylvania
Currently there are 39 States who have picked sides in Texas Supreme Court election challenge, and one of the arguments for these four state defendants is:
“Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’ preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy,”
That's blatantly false, and a logical fallacy. Texas is suing them for violating the Constitution which gives the state legislatures exclusive, total and complete authority to make the rules governing elections in their states.
** Margot Cleveland ran an excellent piece in the Federalist, entitled, by 6 Things To Know About Texas’s Supreme Court Petition Over 2020’s Messed-Up Election and gives an excellent explanation of what Texas is asking for, and that is - these four states must follow the law, when in fact they are in obvious, complete and provable violation of the law.
Officials and/or judges in these states violated election laws in all or some of these states by abrogating signature verification requirements, changed deadlines, refused to follow state laws regarding poll watchers, violated state laws on how ballots were handled, and in a sundry of ways, all in violation of state laws.
By failing to follow their states election laws they potentially allowed voter fraud to disenfranchise legal voters in all the other states of the United States. In such a case proving voter fraud may be an important side bar, but that can prove difficult, and in this case unnecessary. In this case all they have to do is prove these states deliberately, and provably, violated the Constitution which give the state legislatures total and complete authority to decide how elections are done in their states.
Neither the courts, the governors, or any bureaucratic system set up in these states to run the elections can overrule them, nor can they change those rules, subtly or egregiously, without their state legislatures approval. And yet these states judges and officials did it in spades.
Will SCOTUS hear the case? I find it hard the believe they won't, since so many states are now involved it's almost like an unofficial mini Article V Convention of States.
The trust in America's institutions is at an all-time low. If this case is ignored, there will be no trust in our institutions. And the long-term consequences of such a failure, and the illegal installment of Joe Biden as President of the United States, will set events into motion that, in my opinion, will become frightening.
* Update: In this piece, Two Supreme Court Justices Are of the View the Court MUST Hear Cases Involving Disputes Between States -- Are There Three Others? they quote:
The first paragraph of Justice Thomas’ dissent read as follows:
Federal law does not, on its face, give this Court discretion to decline to decide cases within its original jurisdiction. Yet the Court has long exercised such discretion, and does so again today in denying, without explanation, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s motion for leave to file a complaint against Colorado. I would not dispose of the complaint so hastily. Because our discretionary approach to exercising our original jurisdiction is questionable, and because the plaintiff States have made a reasonable case that this dispute falls within our original and exclusive jurisdiction, I would grant the plaintiff States leave to file their complaint.
As noted, by joining Justice Thomas’s dissent, Justice Alito signaled he agreed with Justice Thomas’s view on whether the Court must hear cases involving claims made by one state against another state.
Justice Thomas went on to explain his view:
Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it. Nothing in §1251(a) suggests that the Court can opt to decline jurisdiction over such a controversy. Context confirms that §1251(a) confers no such discretion. When Congress has chosen to give this Court discretion over its merits docket, it has done so clearly…. Compare §1251(a) (the Court “shall have” jurisdiction over controversies between States) with §1254(1) (cases in the courts of appeals “may be reviewed” by this Court by writ of certiorari) and §1257(a) (final judgments of state courts“may be reviewed” by this Court by writ of certiorari). The Court’s lack of discretion is confirmed by the fact that, unlike other matters within our original jurisdiction, our jurisdiction over controversies between States is exclusive…. If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief. When presented with such a controversy, “[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given,than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J.).
Nonetheless, the Court has exercised discretion and declined to hear cases that fall within the terms of its original jurisdiction…. The Court has even exercised this discretion to decline cases where, as here, the dispute is between two States and thus falls within our exclusive jurisdiction…. The Court has concluded that its original jurisdiction is “obligatory only in appropriate cases” and has favored a “sparing use” of that jurisdiction…. The Court’s reasons for transforming its mandatory, original jurisdiction into discretionary jurisdiction have been rooted in policy considerations. The Court has, for example, cited its purported lack of “special competence in dealing with” many interstate disputes and emphasized its modern role “as an appellate tribunal.”…
I have previously applied the Court’s precedents taking this discretionary approach to our original jurisdiction…. I have also acknowledged that “sound reasons” support that approach…. Because our discretionary approach appears to be at odds with the statutory text, it bears reconsideration. Moreover, the “reasons” we have given to support the discretionary approach are policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text specifying the Court’s original jurisdiction.
The question that needs answering is this: What remedy is there when SCOTUS decides it won't obey the Constitution?
No comments:
Post a Comment