Late Friday night, the Supreme Court of the United States
slapped the state of Texas and around 17 other states across the
face with a large, dead fish. The Supremes claimed that Texas did
not have “standing” (a direct injury) to support its demand that
the Constitution be followed in the election for U.S.
president.
Problem is: “Standing” was
invented by the Supreme Court. It
only really got going as late as the 1970s. The governing,
landmark Lujan
precedent
dates back only to 1992.
So, the Supreme Court dismissed
the lawsuit by Texas by a 7-2 margin, stating:
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the
Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable
interest in the manner in which another State conducts its
elections.”
But was that the question? Or is that a dishonest caricature of
the question? Did Texas ask the Supreme Court to dictate the
“manner in which another State conducts its elections”? Or
did the U.S. Constitution already mandate in Article
II, Section 1, what all states must do?
My friend Norm Bradford often says, “You got the right answer to
the wrong question.” The Supreme Court dishonestly misrepresented
the Texas lawsuit. Texas asked to have all states follow the
Constitution uniformly.
With their dismissal, the Supremes threw all future elections
into doubt. This will go down as destructive as the Dred Scott
decision that spurred
us into the Civil War.
Unfortunately, yes, it was always this bad. The political world
just did a better job in the past of concealing the decay and
dishonesty behind the curtains. A gullible public, hoping it could
trust in the United States as a shining example of good and
democracy, didn’t ask too many questions.
The abuse of standing to pick and choose which lawsuits are
favored has been
discredited and exposed for many decades. Few things the
Supreme Court has done in the last century will be as important as
the Texas lawsuit just dismissed. The vast majority of cases the
high court takes are obscure and relatively unimportant.
Standing is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in any
legislation governing the federal courts. The Constitution
authorizes federal courts to decide “all cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this U.S. Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority.” [Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution (emphasis
added).] Article III, Section 2, refers to “controversies” but only
for diversity cases that are not brought under federal or
constitutional laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court conjured “standing” out of thin air,
talking about a case and controversy – not case or controversy.
They invented inconsistent, self-contradictory and illogical
“rules.” That’s yet another way they can pick and choose policy
outcomes while pretending to follow objective standards.
One of the big questions has been, can the courts provide a
remedy to an obviously unconstitutional and illegal election? Could
the high court issue an order that would fix some or all of the
problems?
Well, that question didn’t bother the Supreme Court in Massachusetts
v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516–26 (2007). Massachusetts sued the
EPA over global warming. Every single “rule” of standing was
massively, grotesquely violated.
The EPA was not causing the oceans to rise, yet it was the
defendant. Massachusetts did not sue any polluting industries. U.S.
industry was not the only or primary source of carbon dioxide in
the world – so how could the justices order a remedy against the
EPA that would stop the oceans from rising?
In the Texas case, if the justices followed consistency and
logic, they could have ordered that ballots received in violation
of state law established by the state legislature are invalid,
actually unconstitutional, and cannot be included in the tabulation
of legitimate votes. That is, the Supreme Court could merely order
that only the state legislature has the microphone and everyone
else in the state must sit down and zip it.
No one has done a better job than Judge Janice Rogers Brown of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in
politely criticizing the chaos that has been created. Although much
more diplomatic than I am, Rogers’ dissent in
Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015), roasted the
unsound mishmash of the majority opinion.
I wrote
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari appealing
to the Supreme Court, and I wrote
Arpaio’s Friend of the Court brief in support of Texas, with
the direction, review and signature of attorney Larry Klayman.
Arpaio documented how law enforcement personnel were arresting the
same illegal aliens again and again for different state law crimes.
That directly increased costs to his office and risks to his
deputies.
Large parts of the briefs I wrote quoted from Judge Janice
Rogers Brown’s dissent. How could you not, when a Court of Appeals
judge has made your case for you?
In the Massachusetts case, the state stacked speculation upon
speculation to “imagineer” (a Disney term) that perhaps
Massachusetts might lose coast line 100 years in the future. Good
enough if you’re a liberal.
“Standing” games by the Supreme Court include challenging
whether the harm is speculative, based on assumptions, or certain
to occur. In Massachusetts, the Supremes said, “EPA’s steadfast
refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of
harm to Massachusetts that is both ‘actual’ and ‘imminent.’
…”
“A risk of harm.” It might happen. If this happens, then that
happens, then that happens, there might be a risk. A mere “risk” is
standing enough if you are a liberal.
Courts dismiss conservative lawsuits because there just might be
some countervailing benefits. For example, opponents of illegal
immigration lose because there might be – speculatively –
economic benefits from illegal immigration.
Yet, if there were global warming, the value to Massachusetts of
warmer beaches would greatly exceed the trivial loss of an inch or
two of coastline. Nobody in his right mind wants to go swimming off
a freezing Massachusetts beach. But inconsistent standards are
applied.
Donald Trump’s presidency and his campaign have ripped the mask
off. Those desperately trying to hide behind the curtain lied, of
course, to say it is only about Trump. Now, the insurgency has
grown so strong that the deep state had to come out of the shadows
and showed themselves in full view of the American people in order
to counter Trump as the figurehead.
President Trump has fundamentally changed the entire political
landscape because the hidden armies had to come out of the forest
and engage in open warfare on the open plains in full view of the
public. They lost their invisibility as the cost of attacking
Trump. We must make sure they are not able to shrink
back into the shadows, but keep fighting.
Note: The legal world will deceitfully try to argue that the
word “corrupt” means accusing someone of taking an envelope of
cash. That is not what we are talking about. “Corrupt” also means
bent and distorted from a thing’s intended purpose, as in the
corruption from decay.
The post
The Supreme Court has thrown future elections into doubt
appeared first on WND.
