SCOTUS denies election integrity, refuses to hear challenge to illegality
SAN DIEGO: Recent news that SCOTUS refused to hear the Texas voter fraud lawsuit clouds fair play. On Newsmax TV’s ”Stinchfield,” Law Professor Alan Dershowitz agreed with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who indicated that Texas did have standing, saying they ”get the better of the argument.” But that the court just didn’t want to deal with what may be perceived as political.” Yet the message SCOTUS sends is political.
The 2020 Texas lawsuit rejection a hypocritical contrast to SCOTUS’ decision to rule on Democrat voter fraud in 2008.
Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
The Indiana Democratic Party and Marion County Democratic Central Committee in 2008 filed the case with the intent to declare Indiana’s “Voter ID Law” or “SEA 483,” ‘unconstitutional.’
If the Supreme Court thought voter fraud claims important enough to rule on one Indiana case, then why not massive voter fraud in four key battleground states? Both Alito and Thomas were involved in both cases.
“Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Roberts and Kennedy joined. Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas and Alito joined. Souter filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsberg joined. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.” – 2008 SCOTUS Summary.
The SCOTUS ruling was, “the evidence in the record does not support a facial attack on SEA 483’s validity.”
SCOTUS gives merit to voter threats in 2008.
In the 2008 Democrat case, the Supreme Court explains in-depth how the risk, influence, consequence of voter fraud outweighs a perceived ‘burden to vote’. Emphasizing how Indiana’s SEA 483 law protected the vote.
(Page 2 of SCOTUS summary Syllabus):
“(b) Each of Indiana’s asserted interests is unquestionably relevant to its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient. Indiana also claims a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana.”
“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes. Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
Justice Stevens opinion reiterated on page 7,
“The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud.”
A huge case overflowing with voter fraud arrives years later on the Supreme Court’s steps.
This because courts in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania did not uphold their own laws when presented with undeniable voter fraud evidence.
“[The Texas lawsuit] argued that by weakening laws intended to curb fraud, the officials in the four states denied citizens in Texas — and other states — equal protection of their vote. Dershowitz said he believed the argument was valid, but the Supreme Court, in essence, said that citizens in other states were not harmed by the actions of officials in the four states,” says Newsmax
Upholding Indiana’s state voter ID law ok in 2008. Yet ballot-counting extensions breaching Pennsylvania’s constitutional law doesn’t find a place in the supreme halls of justice?
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.” Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joined.
Democrats produced no evidence in 2008, yet the Supreme Court heard them.
Opinion of Stevens, page 3 of SCOTUS Summary:
The Democrat case contested Indiana law requiring an ID claiming it was too hard for some people to get one. In essence opening the door wider for voter fraud. Yet, they failed to come up with one person it happened to. The case was first brought to a district court.
“After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment…She found that petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.”
She rejected “as utterly incredible and unreliable” an expert’s report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification.”
Good try Dems to cheat back then, but you lost that one.
In magnitude contrast, 2020 Election fraud offers signed affidavits of hundreds of witnesses, expert testimonies, forensic analysis, auditing of voting machine irregularities, video capturing ballot dumps, ballot harvesting, voices of poll workers captured in the act, and the list keeps growing. In essence trying to protect the vote. Yet SCOTUS hasn’t given a deep look…yet.
Why are SCOTUS, state courts denying American voters justice?
“Article I, section four of the United States Constitution empowers the States to determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” subject to Congressional oversight. U.S. CONST., art I, § 4, cl. 1.”
We’re talking legislative powers on the chopping block by those unauthorized with an axe. The recent news of Justice Alito denying the Texas lawsuit is baffling. The Texas boot sweeps away the law and allows a different set of election standards within states who don’t uphold law. It even ignores viable threats to national security.
Democrat petitioners attacked state constitutional law in 2008. Four judges voted to grant a petition for rehearing. Why? Because they agreed with their assessment of the importance of these cases.
The Texas lawsuit may not be apples to apples, but the claim is the 4 battleground states broke their own constitutional laws governing elections. Let’s hope SCOTUS relights its fire regarding voter fraud.
Winners never cheat. Cheaters never win.
The defendants argue Texas doesn’t have a leg to stand on to determine how other states conduct their elections. A poor excuse that greenlights criminality in our once-free national elections. The fraudsters rob states’ legal rights and each American’s stake in the outcome. SCOTUS is wrong, as it affects us as a whole body when it comes to electing a president.
You won’t see many videos of this because YouTube recently scrubbed voter fraud truth. However, alternative video site Rumble.com is picking up the slack.
See only the Left reports debunking voter fraud on Google. Media and big tech censorship deprive millions from information vital to their futures. Censoring our president on matters of national concern and security is treason. This is deep-state propaganda dissemination. Blasting to bits the 1st Amendment, Where is the law on this?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Years of practice for the greatest election crime of all.
According to a Public Interest Legal Foundation analysis of reports filed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) on the 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 elections, more than 28 million mail-in ballots effectively disappeared. Their fate is listed as “unknown by the EAC based on survey data sent to the EAC by state election officials,” says Heritage Foundation.
“Mail-in ballots certainly make illegal vote-buying easier since the buyer can ensure that the voter is voting the way he is being paid to vote. Something that cannot happen in a polling place. This is illustrated by the 2019 conviction of a city council candidate in Hoboken, New Jersey. [Democrat] Frank Raia was convicted for “orchestrating a widespread scheme,” says Heritage.
The operation began in 2009 when state law eased requirements for voting by mail. In 2020, Democrats exploited this to the max using COVID as an excuse to cheat.
Democrats tried to say a felony threat protects from voter fraud.
“Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future,” says Page 11, SCOTUS Summary.
“Finally, the State contends that it has an interest in protecting public confidence “in the integrity and legitimacy of representative government. As the Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters,” page 13, SCOTUS summary.
If vote integrity is SCOTUS’ intent, why aren’t we seeing it? Hence, what’s more important to SCOTUS? Is it justice or appeasement? I think we know.
A country without law, is a country ruled by crime. Resulting in any person, group, party, state becoming fair game. It’s time for SCOTUS to protect the Constitution and rule of law. What we the people pay them to do.
Featured Image: Composite Artwork Dave McKinney - share alike U.S. Supreme Court building, Carol M. Highsmith https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Supreme_Court_building-m.jpg Man sweeping the floor, StockUnlimited - licensed, https://www.stockunlimited.com/image/man-sweeping-the-floor_1837990.html Businessman Walking , StockUnlimited - licensed, https://www.stockunlimited.com/image/businessman-walking-carefully-towards-door-of-success_1675671.html# 3d Box, kunal.vicky https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3_D-Box.jpg