Enter the Supreme Court
As I expressed earlier in American Thinker, the quest for President Trump to prevail for his second term is a dynamic campaign against historic 2020 election corruption.
It is a campaign as opposed to the older cliché “the battle for the White House”.
In this campaign thankfully now enter the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has total discretion on all cases presented to them and actually could have taken a pass on a key case involving the recent election.
The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case.
The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers.
Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts.
Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.
In reviewing Court case statistics, one finds how difficult it is to have the Supreme Court take a case:
“Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which about 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.”
Consequently as the 2020 campaign against the horrific grand theft election corruption has been playing out, it was not a forgone conclusion that the Supreme Court would chose to be involved.
This is especially true with American citizens not being able to count on the integrity of Chief Justice Roberts.
It also explains the tremendous fear that the Democrats had in confirming Justice Barrett to change the court balance if the election case or cases did reached their level.
The plan to steal the election had to predate the Senate confirmation hearings,
A brilliant recent religious finding shows our Supreme Court now a five Justice majority recently demonstrated by a legally solid and responsible common sense ruling, that even the uber-liberal New York Times approved;
“The Supreme Court last week made a major move toward constitutional normalcy:
“It blocked enforcement of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s hyper-restrictive rules for in-person religious services in New York until the government provides logical justification for treating worship more harshly than seemingly comparable (or riskier) activities.”
As the various pieces of hard evidence accumulate state by state during this constitutional corruption case now thanks to Associate Justice Samuel Alito the Supreme Court is involved and engaged.
The Supreme Court has again been asked to block Biden win in Pennsylvania.
According to the Washington Post:
“HARRISBURG, Pa. — Fresh off another rejection in Pennsylvania’s courts, Republicans on Thursday again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the battleground state, while the state’s lawyers say fatal flaws in the original case mean justices are highly unlikely to grant it.”
As to be expected the word “fatal flaw” shows that the liberal press is always trying to be full on anti-Trump team and in being snarky totally misses the point.
The hack Pols in PA triggered a full on Constitutional battle for the keeping the power prestige and integrity of the Court inviolate.
It is glaringly obvious that by dissing Justice Alito’s Supreme Court guidance in protecting legal ballots in being co-mingled with corrupted ballots they insulted the entire Court.
Not to make light of it but let us all hope the rule that made the Hells Angels so effective in a fight, “an attack on one is an attack on all” will now band the Justices together.
Another historic precedent coming judicially into play beside the corruption of hard copy ballots, the corruption in the merging of hard copy ballots with the computer counting interface or one stop cut to the chase going direct to electronically rig the outcome is the much dreaded and feared words in any discrimination Court case “what does the statistics show?
The evidentiary backbone of many many successful discrimination cases are resolved by statistical analysis.
Such an approach remedies past injustice targeting race, gender and age.
As the Supreme Court begins their role in this great campaign it has to be recognized because of our Court system all Americans have enjoyed the protection of taking statistical evidence of discrimination as very hard evidence.
“A disparate impact claim inevitably has statistics at its core, and that is our focus. However, a disparate treatment theory (“I was treated unfairly because of my race”) is also available to support a claim of discrimination. Disparate treatment claims also use statistical evidence, but it is not sufficient: a claimant using this theory must show intent to discriminate.”
In corrupting the election the word ‘intent” by Democrat operatives is not an issue and readily apparent.
Consequently combining the statically analysis with all sorts of hard sworn evidence is a case that if it gets to the “Supremes” in this epic campaign will continue to reinforce my opinion that I would rather be with us, honest American Trump supporters then them, the dishonest election thieves.
Time will tell rather quickly on all this as one of the most important moments in American history.