Pete Conlan in a post at American Thinker today asks Will the Supreme Court stand up this time? Conlan believes the evidence for the stealing of the 2020 election is overwhelming. I believe it too. He cites some of the evidence gathered by Dinesh D'Souza in his film 2000 Mules. But there is also the article by Mollie Ball that bragged about the stealing of the election. We could all see that the statistics didn't add up. We could all see that we had gone to bed with Trump winning. Then they stopped the counting in several battleground states at the same time. When the counting resumed, Biden had won. It is not that there is no evidence. It is rather that no court would look at the evidence, including the Supreme Court.
As most of you know, the Supreme Court declined to hear any of the 2020 election challenges put forth by Texas AG Ken Paxton and supported by 18 state attorneys general and 106 Republican members of Congress.
“The lawsuit sought to discard the presidential election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, four crucial states won by Mr Biden. Texas alleged that the results in those states were unlawful because of changes to voting procedures to help Americans cast their ballots during the coronavirus pandemic… But on Thursday, the four states in a filing asked the justices to reject the lawsuit, which they said had no legal grounds. The Supreme Court agreed. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in its ruling.”
How does a state not have a “cognizable interest” when it is clear that the outcome of the election would have a direct negative impact on the state(s) as we have seen, for example, with the massive unchecked illegal immigration into Texas and others because of Biden policies? Is the fact that 18 other state attorneys general supported the lawsuit a non-starter? What entity, or what circumstance would it have taken for SCOTUS to hear the case?
Conlan also notes, as have many others that: a) The Democrats don't have any other viable candidates and b) Election fraud worked before, so the probability of its use again seems near 100%.
What we see now is that the Democrats have no viable candidate for President, and this is likely going to have a significant down-ballot effect on the Senate and House. Many have posited that it doesn’t matter because this is not the last time the Left will successfully steal the election. Maybe we don’t know how, exactly, but they did it once so it is all but a guarantee they will try it again.
What I don't really see in all this is a way for conservatives to fight the fraud in the courts if the courts won't see the evidence, or if they take the case, throw out all the relevant evidence. Like Conlan, I don't have any answers, and I wish I did.
No comments:
Post a Comment