By Duncan Smith
President Donald Trump and Republicans spent a whole bunch of political capital getting three of his nominees appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Each one of them was supposed to be a rock-solid constitutionalist.
Turns out none of them are.
One of the most compelling and important and true constitutional cases to come before the nation’s highest court — challenges to unconstitutional changes in balloting rules made in the weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 election — was completely ignored by a majority of justices.
They didn’t even want to hear Texas’ challenge against four other states, where executive branch officials and state courts changed voting rules.
That’s not permitted under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says only state legislatures can make changes to voting rules and laws.
Had those cowards not been so cowardly, it was an open-and-shut decision, a gimme, a lay-up. But by ruling in favor of the Constitution, that would have meant throwing out the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Instead, justices decided to throw out Section 2, thereby making it ‘official’ that Democratic potentates in any state can simply alter voting procedures on a whim, eliminating a key constitutional protection for We the People.
Well, finally justices have decided to hear a case involving some of those changes in Pennsylvania.
But in reality, the high court has ruled in a way that makes taking the case pointless.
The justices this week set a reply deadline for Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and the other respondents named in the case of Jan. 22. The campaign had asked for the Supreme Court to order those on the other side of the litigation to respond by Wednesday and have reply briefs from the Trump campaign submitted by Thursday. It also asked the court to rule by Jan. 6. But the court did not oblige.
January 22, by the way, is two days after Joe Biden is to be inaugurated on Jan. 20:
This means that by the time Boockvar and the others the Trump campaign is seeking to take to the Supreme Court even respond to the petition, President-elect Joe Biden will already be sworn in.
At that point, the court could simply decline to hear the case, saying it is moot or impossible for them to resolve at that point. Congress will have already counted electoral votes and certified the next president — that meeting happens on Jan. 6. The Trump campaign, however, argued in its brief that even Inauguration Day would not make the court 'moot' because such issues could happen in the future, and therefore the court should resolve them ahead of time.
Yeah, sure. But the court has made it abundantly clear justices have no backbone to preserve a vital, clear, and precise component of the Constitution, which is a distinct violation of their oaths of office, not to mention a horrible betrayal of the president who appointed three of them (and the American people who voted for the president who appointed them).
Our institutions are broken. They no longer function as designed. We don’t have a republic anymore, just an oligarchy where the rich, powerful elite ‘run things’ and the rest of us are expected to just suck it.
Is Joe Biden's Inflation Going to Destroy our Economy and Break the Back of Consumers?
Are backed-up supply chains adding to the dilemma of bad policy?
You can't afford NOT to be prepared for the coming financial reset