"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty." ~ George S. PattonIn an objective world, one would clearly see that the federal judiciary has finally forfeited its right to determine ALL political questions. However, as we've become all too accustom, with the parties pulling away from constitutional republicanism, the cowardly judiciary continues to follow suit in its one-sided decision-making to the benefit of the Left and the detriment of the People...
So Republicans plan to ignore every illegal court ruling overturning state voter integrity laws in the future, right? ... Is there anything that is out of bounds for a court to do, or are courts like an all-powerful God? ...
We finally discovered an instance in which the courts will enforce requirements for standing and refuse to adjudicate broadly political questions. Now it's time for conservatives to treat every court decision that violates rules of standing and the principle of federalism as null and void. Will all these principled "conservatives" who are cheering the court's decision in the Texas lawsuit stand with us in opposing judicial supremacism in all forms?
In recent years, the federal courts have waded into every political issue imaginable. ... For a while, it appeared there was nothing a state (and even the feds) could do without a federal court violating the rules of standing to give some straw-man third-party organization standing to sue to overturn the outcome of a fundamentally political issue and decide it with finality.
However, those same courts have no problem when states thumb their noses at federal immigration law or when they violate every individual right known to man under the guise of fighting coronavirus.
In other words, these judges believe in states' rights when the outcome benefits the Left, and they believe in a strong federal government with final court adjudication when it benefits the Left as well. They believe in protecting "rights" when they are invented, but not real rights spelled out in the Constitution. Heads the Left wins; tails we lose.
Which brings us to the Friday night decision not to take up the Texas lawsuit alleging that four states violated election law in a way that tainted the outcome of a federal election. Many conservative pundits and elected Republicans are cheering this decision as a much-needed exercise in judicial restraint, respect for state powers, and properly defending the rules of Article III standing. After all, we shouldn't have federal courts determining political questions, such as the results of a presidential race (never mind that the lawsuit was not seeking a determination on who won, a decision ultimately left to the state legislatures and congressional certification).
There is one problem with this line of thought. The only reason we are in the position we are today with a broken election system full of mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting is precisely because the federal courts officiously commandeered state election laws for the past generation. Yes, the federal courts have butted in to every state decision on election law – except those interventions were OK because they benefited Democrats. ...
Thus, the entire premise and precedent for the current electoral model that Democrats abused this year was created wholesale by the lower federal courts that the pathetic Supreme Court has failed to police. ... There never seems to be a problem of federalism and Article III standing when lower federal courts want to shred existing state election law in order to benefit Democrats. Somehow, the Supreme Court rarely reverses these opinions before the elections. Then, when we seek redress for the fallout that was largely enabled over the years, and during this particular election, from the federal judiciary's foray into state powers in the first place, we are told that the Supreme Court wants to stay out.
This is not about Trump, and it's not even just about future elections. This is about a fundamentally rigged judiciary and political system that has one rule of engagement that is consistent: Heads the Democrats win, tails the people lose.
Republican establishment types will tell you to look forward to "the next election," when Republicans will win back a lot of power. Let's indulge this line of thought for a moment. Let's forget about the fact that Republicans can no longer win elections because of the election law fraud that is being enabled (and often perpetrated) by the courts and the political system. For argument's sake, let's say Republicans win back the trifecta control of government in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 2022 as they did in 2010. And let's also indulge the myth that somehow these Republicans will actually pass worthy legislation on numerous issues that are important to us. Just understand that every one of them will be "struck down" by the courts.And as Levin concluded yesterday...
How do I know? This is what has already happened last decade, when Republicans won these states after 2010. I'll never forget the tears in the eyes of one North Carolina activist who fought so hard to pass photo ID requirements when she saw, following the Fourth Circuit ruling, a sign outside a polling station inviting people to vote without photo verification. Despite photo ID requirements being codified in the state's constitution, the federal courts have handed Democrats one victory after another. We can't even long for a better day or to perform better next time because we can no longer win elections due to the fraud, not to mention the fact that these very same courts that are so hands-off suddenly become hands-on when we gain power. ...
If we had a sane party of Republicans, they would use this ruling as an impetus to ignore every illegal federal court decision. They would adopt Lincoln's view as expressed in the sixth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858: "Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it."
Then again, we don't have any party today that cares about the Constitution or is willing to fight for it on any issue. We must all look beyond the idolatry of the Republican Party and a "conservative" Supreme Court if we are to maintain some semblance of republicanism in any part of this country.
...the founders feared two kinds of tyranny — the mob (pure democracy) and the monarchy (the central government)! The Democrats are systemically destroying the Constitution on a state by state basis since they don’t have the momentum to get a constitutional amendment passed in Congress. So they have used unconstitutional means like lawsuits and judicial activism to circumvent the rules and now there isn’t a court in America with enough courage to stand up for the Constitution because so many of them have been compromised.We've entered dire times when there's no political force to courageously oppose the onset of either types of tyranny.
Related links: How the Two-Faced Federal Courts Broke Our Election System
America Is Headed Down a Dark Path with Irrational COVID Control
AG Ken Paxton says Supreme Court DISENFRANCHISED Texas Voters, and talks PLAN B
ADDENDUM: Yup...
1. This election has exposed the complete collapse of the judiciary as a check on unconstitutional acts by state officials eviscerating legislative authority under our federal constitution (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2).
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 16, 20203. That Court intervenes relentlessly in state election processes, almost exclusively in support of leftwing activists and Democrat organizations that seek to weaken election security and fraud prevent.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 16, 20205. and state constitutional issues, not to mention serious questions of fraud in states including, but not limited to Wisconsin and Georgia, these courts have disgraced themselves and severely damaged the electoral process.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 16, 20207. ..Chuck Schumer's propaganda about his desire to pack the Court because it is supposedly too conservative, the FACT is the opposite.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 16, 20208. When the Court actually upholds the Constitution it is, more often than not, the EXCEPTION to the rule, which for the Court is activism with few limits.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 16, 2020
