Patriots were even more enthused by the fact that Trump managed to get three Supreme Court nominees pushed through as well.
The jury is still out on the majority of his picks for federal and appeals courts, but it’s now crystal clear the men and woman he appointed to the nation’s highest court are statists beholden to the status quo, not constitutionalists in the mold of our founders.
Prior to the Nov. 3 election, when Democratic operatives were convincing Democratic secretaries of state, governors, and courts to illegally change balloting rules (ostensibly to ‘protect’ voters during the COVID-19 pandemic even though they could still ‘safely shop’ at a big-box retailer), the Supreme Court refused to hear legal challenges to those rule changes.
We all know what happened: Those voting rule changes — greatly expanding mail-in balloting; extending mail-in balloting return deadlines past Election Day; allowing mass dispersal of unmonitored drop boxes — all benefitted the mind-addled Joe Biden.
Now, after the election is over, a few of those legal challenges remained before the Supreme Court. One of them involved a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania Republicans against officials who changed the rules in violation of existing state law; it seemed clear that, since there are no ‘pandemic’ provisions in Pennsylvania law, and since all voting procedures and rules must be passed by the state legislature, the Supreme Court ought to take up the case and settle the issue well before the next elections.
Only three of the nine justices agreed to hear the Pennsylvania challenge (it takes four justices to agree for the entire court to hear cases). Two who refused were Trump nominees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett (his third pick, Justice Neil Gorsuch, sided with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas).
So, the case is essentially dismissed, state officials who have no authority under the law and Constitution to alter existing voting rules got away with rigging an election, and there is still the very distinct possibility that this illegal conduct will carry over in subsequent elections, further rendering the rule of law moot as well as the institutions that were established to enforce those laws.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas made it clear the high court was making a mistake not to hear the Pennsylvania case at the very least.
“This is not a prescription for confidence,” Thomas wrote on Monday, adding that “changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” he continued. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
He added: “If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.”
“We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” Thomas wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence. Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.”
So — what’s up with the highest court? Political consultant Dick Morris and former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova believe the others have been intimidated into going along with the Washington Democratic elite.
“The Supreme Court has been intimidated by [President Joe] Biden and by the Democratic Party," Morris told "Greg Kelly Reports” on Newsmax TV.
"I think that they floated the idea of 'court packing' during the election. The whole point was to get the Supreme Court neutered and out of the way so that they could do whatever they were going to do in 2020,” he added. “And that process of intimidating the court, by threatening to pack it, or rotate the judges, or appoint other justices to the court, or have an age limit.
"This is all a device by the Democrats to neuter and intimidate the Supreme Court. And that's why you have an unbroken series of anti-Trump rulings, including the important one today which was to deny certiorari on the Pennsylvania case,” he continued, noting that the high court also let stand a lower court decision forcing Trump to hand over his tax returns to a New York prosecutor.
“The Constitution says that the state legislatures shall set the rules, the legislature did, the [Pennsylvania] secretary of state violated them, they carried out the secretary of state's orders, congressmen sued, and they won't take the case," Morris continued. "This is a court that is in terror of being packed.”
See more reporting like this at Trump.news.