Over at the American Thinker today, Andrew W. Coy has an article analyzing the reasons why the Supreme Court refused to see or hear any evidence in the Presidential Election of 2020. Coy's notion is that the Supreme Court are either Cowards, Crooks, or Compromised. Unfortunately, he doesn't come to any conclusions as to which it is. But he at least lays out what the range of the possibilities is. But I think any member of this court should feel utterly ashamed at the notion that they had the chance to set things right, and did not take it. On the other hand, shame is not something today's politicians feel.
They appear to be cowards or crooks or compromised. Cowards, crooks, or compromised seems to be the only way to explain the decision-making of the United States Supreme Court. The Court's unwillingness to make any decisions regarding the presidential election of 2020 is a historic failure. These last twelve months have seen the Court refuse to do its duty. The Court refused to be a co-equal branch of the federal government.
With the Bush v. Gore of 2000, there is legal precedent. Just twenty short years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took Bush v. Gore, a presidential election case, so the precedent was there. Over this last year, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address election law questions before the election last summer, right before the election, right after the election, and even prior to the inauguration in January. On all these occasions, the majority of the Supreme Court judges refused to hear any case dealing with the presidential election. They stuck their heads in the sand and acted as if they had no role.
One could argue, successfully, that January 6 on the Washington Mall happened because of the lack of integrity and guts in the Supreme Court. Because of their blatant disassociation with being a coequal branch with the presidency and Congress, the Court has lost enormous respect from half of America. This is dangerous to a democratic republic. One must ask, why would they be willing to do this? Are they cowards, crooks, compromised, or something else? Can these be the only answers to this seemingly impotent Supreme Court?Coy goes on to analyze each in turn, either cowardice, or crookedness, or simply compromised. In general he thinks crookedness is the least likely, but doesn't discount it. And while Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito clearly wanted to hear the cases, Roberts receives condemnation as a possible coward of the yellowest stripe. Or is Roberts a man of the Left who hid his leanings behind a mask until safely ensconced at the Supreme Court? He wouldn't be the first. And what about Kavanaugh and Barrett? Wouldn't you think they might owe Trump some measure of loyalty to at lease take a peek at the evidence? I don't condone compromising their principles in their rulings, but at least hear the case.