Hey @h53pilot and @SLAG

I have trouble reconciling the powerfully assertive SCOTUS that we are seeing now with the timid and impotent court that declined any and all election cases.

I FEEL (not know) that SCOTUS is more likely than not involved in whatever manoeuvre it is that Trump is executing. What better way to legitimise a secret convention of states and/or a govt. in exile than to have two of the coequal branches of government involved in its execution?

I invite thoughts on this point.


I think if you look at the very narrow and originalist position the Court took in the recent wins, and compare that with the very narrow and originalist position used to reject the election cases, you'd see a common theme emerge.

The Court does NOT want to write law or assert power where it does not belong to them (but to the States).

The strength that allowed to overturn even Roe, is the strength required to pass on those election cases: their honor obliges them to.

@h53pilot @SLAG

In Texas case:

"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."

That points at a similar originalist and narrow look, making sure they could not be accused of partisan rulings, or of 'ruling from the bench', or of deciding who is president.

This required care.

@h53pilot @SLAG

@ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

SCOTUS has no power to interfere in the plenary authority of state legislatures vis a vis elections.

Plenary is absolute.

But SCOTUS could get involved in the actions of others, especially involving Acts of War and the emergency measures that emerge therefrom.


True, but none of that was on the suits brought before them, were they?

It seems that the Junior Justices were actually more originalist, and did not allow Texas to bring a suit about other states, where Thomas and Alito took the broader view that if one state messes up an election, it touches ALL states. But that avenue might lead to erode the full plenary authority of individual states, in this Republic.

This is a very interesting situation...

@h53pilot @SLAG

@ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

Perhaps Thomas and Alito were open to a case that allowed them to clarify the plenary authority?


I do believe that they want to have a much clearer case brought before them, that would allow them to rule, 100% clear of any partisanship or judicial legislating, on the merits of such issues.

Perhaps that Texas case came close, but was not the right time.

Imagine their Abortion verdict, but given 2 years ago. Can you imagine the outcry THEN? Vs the rather tame response now?

Now imagine them taking on such election case, with Trump (and the media) still around...

@h53pilot @SLAG


@ArnGrimR @Andre @h53pilot @SLAG

Bingo. It would have been a mess, and detrimental to the entire effort to expose the Dems and their associates for all of their activities, all of their agenda, all of their intentions, not just election fraud.

And DJT's absence certainly made Afghanistan and Ukraine easier to accomplish.

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 7

@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

The importance of the international aspects in the crippling of the Swamp's tools cannot be overstated.

The Democrats have been cut off from a great deal of power and resource in the past year.

Great thoughts!
Historically matters become very controversial when Judges are asked to provide “advice”.
Judges are there to interpret laws and decide specific cases that are brought before them.
I also have general difficulty with the concept of “briefing” some but not all the Judges of the Court and in particular if the Chief Justice is excluded from the “briefing”.
@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

@johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

I agree that my imaginings regarding excluding the liberal Justices are among my greater stretches. I do imagine that Roberts would have to be involved.

@Andre @johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

Roberts did manage to distance himself.

I see that as cowardice.

Bush appointee.

Think of it what you will.

@Luther @johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

I think Roberts will eventually be seen to have done his duty.

But he is a limp waisted Chief Justice and will be viewed as such by history.

That said, I’m sure most would agree that times of war are “exceptional circumstances” and the existence of a “war” is a material fact which should be legitimate to bring to the attention of the Court as a whole (no one excluded).
The President and the Judges swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Where the Constitution is under threat I would suggest that it is also legitimate to bring the facts to the Court’s attention - with evidence.
@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

In the US, Article II of the Federal Rules of Evidence addresses the principle of “Judicial Notice”. It’s part of the law of evidence.
A “briefing” to the Court if it ever occurred would allow the Court to take “judicial notice” of the facts and matters presented to them.
We have (never?) had a covert and clandestine state of war like this war. Surely a reason to brief the Court lest the Court hand down decisions on an incorrect premise?
@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

I also imagine there would be other laws (including the Judges’ oath of office) that would ensure that they did not “leak”.
I end with a big spitball.
I have noticed that the personal attacks on John Roberts are comparable in substance to the attacks on Mike Pence.
The attacks on both seem to have started at the same time and possibly by the same person?
Then there was also the purported leaked “shouting” at a conference of the Court.
@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

The leak was specifically attributed to a Judge’s associate but nothing seems to have been done and no action taken that is comparable to the RvW leak action.
Also, all of these attacks and events are supposed to have taken place a little before, around December 18, 2020 or thereabouts.
I am paying a lot of attention to that date.
@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

@johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

Between the election and the inauguration, SCOTUS makes some findings.

Executive actions are proposed in light of those findings.

A secret session rules on those proposals.

Trump acts.

Here we are.

Usually the “other side” should be given the opportunity to know, and to reply to, the accusations that really being levelled against them.
Could any of this have happened in a closed session of the Court?
If it was a full blown Court hearing I would expect a lot of classified material to have been adduced in evidence.

@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

@johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

We have not seen it so if it happened, it happened in Secret.

If the other side has an 'equity' interest, then they get to state their case.

If a state of war exists and the other side is a justly declared enemy, then I do not think they get a right of reply!

I hope you are correct.
It is “possible”.
I feel constrained from using the word “probable”.
I also note that John Roberts swore in (or “purported” to “swear in”) the Manchurian candidates.
If our speculation is correct, it comes with other “unprecedented” implications.
Judicial activism of a different kind?
@jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

@johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

I think the BEST we can do is 'possible' and we lack too much info to go with 'probable' in most instances.

@Andre @johnglavine @jmc464 @ArnGrimR @h53pilot @SLAG

I think the best we can do is to assume that we don’t know anything of what’s really going on, and probably never will.


Doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to figure out as much as we can, given the information we DO have. :dealwithit:

@Andre @johnglavine @jmc464 @h53pilot @SLAG

I agree. It is a useful learning exercise essential for defending the Republic.
Also, while I agree that there are details we will never be told about (thinking of a particular Kash Patel video interview), I think having a good mull over the issues will narrow down possibilities that need to be considered when the truth is revealed.
For the example it won’t be “huh what?” but “this is consistent with the Government in Exile” theory.
@StockliRacer @Andre @jmc464 @h53pilot @SLAG


Spot on!

(And it is just fun, as well, to sleuth around, trying to figure it all out ;) )

@StockliRacer @Andre @jmc464 @h53pilot @SLAG

@ArnGrimR @johnglavine @StockliRacer @jmc464 @h53pilot @SLAG

Having used discernment to inform spitballing, we are going to see the shape emerging before lots of people and will be able to infer much that will be an utter mysteries to the folks just now waking up.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Free Atlantis - Free Speech - Intelligent Conversation - Good People - Good Fun

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!