Posted on by Californiacontrarian

If Not This, Then What ?


Thus far the Supreme Court has deftly and almost defiantly excused itself in perhaps the most critical decision as of the yet early 21st century. The question is whether or not this past presidential election was fraudulent. Personally, I believe that it was stolen, but “I do not have standing!” (In this situation, a convenient SCOTUS avoidance technique.)

I understand the practical dilemma which is, (again as I understand it) if the electoral college does not demonstrate a clear winner by a certain date, then according to the Constitution, the election goes to the House of Representatives. One might think that this would be of benefit to the Dems as they hold a clear majority in the House, but in this situation each state gets the same vote as every other state … in other words, for example, Wyoming would get the same say as California. The problem for the Dems here is that there are more states that are Republican in the U.S., and since each state has the same number of votes as every other state, the likelihood is that the Republican nominee would win.

Well can you imagine the whoopla if that were to occur. As I see it, it would not really matter if SCOTUS took up the case and decided that the election was on the up-and-up, because the drop-dead due date for the Electoral College would have passed.

Ergo, in this situation,one might think that the Supreme Court is forced to turn a blind eye to a potential stolen and unlawful election. . . . But if the Supreme Court cannot judge whether a presidential election was fraudulent, then what good is it? 

In essence what this chicken-sh** move by SCOTUS means is that it is okay to cheat and make up rules in just about anything. To me this has John Roberts’ (it’s a tax . . . it’s not a tax!) fingerprints all over it.

129 Replies to “If Not This, Then What ?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.