You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
The Supreme Court: Cowards, Crooks, or Compromised?
2021-04-01
[American Thinker] They appear to be cowards or crooks or compromised. Cowards, crooks, or compromised seems to be the only way to explain the decision-making of the United States Supreme Court. The Court's unwillingness to make any decisions regarding the presidential election of 2020 is a historic failure. These last twelve months have seen the Court refuse to do its duty. The Court refused to be a co-equal branch of the federal government.

With the Bush v. Gore of 2000, there is legal precedent. Just twenty short years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court took Bush v. Gore, a presidential election case, so the precedent was there. Over this last year, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address election law questions before the election last summer, right before the election, right after the election, and even prior to the inauguration in January. On all these occasions, the majority of the Supreme Court judges refused to hear any case dealing with the presidential election. They stuck their heads in the sand and acted as if they had no role.

One could argue, successfully, that January 6 on the Washington Mall happened because of the lack of integrity and guts in the Supreme Court. Because of their blatant disassociation with being a coequal branch with the presidency and Congress, the Court has lost enormous respect from half of America. This is dangerous to a democratic republic. One must ask, why would they be willing to do this? Are they cowards, crooks, compromised, or something else? Can these be the only answers to this seemingly impotent Supreme Court?

Are the Supreme Court members simply cowards? Did they get scared so much by the violence last summer, that they felt for their own and their family members' safety? Did the violence, looting, burning, assaults, and even deaths that occurred during the Antifa and BLM insurrections last summer simply scare individual members of the Court? Were they simply frightened from hearing any cases dealing with the 2020 presidential election? Did they not want BLM/Antifa showing up as a mob on their front doorsteps in Georgetown? Did they not want Deep State operatives casing their children's or grandchildren's school or college? These mobs have done this before, so there is a precedent. Mobs showed up at Tucker Carlson's home last summer when Tucker was on the air and forced Tucker's wife to hide in the closet until police arrived. It has been reported that Chief Justice Roberts even referred to the violence last summer as a reason for not accepting cases involving the 2020 election. Whether these reports were accurate, we don't know. So maybe as individuals, parents, and grandparents, the majority of the Court did not want to hear any election cases based solely on fear. Were they frightened from doing their constitutional duty?
Posted by:Besoeker

#12  I would like to point out that Justice Thomas has shown integrity. One is not enough for anything but he has shown integrity.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2021-04-01 17:28  

#11  The threat to court pack cowed Roberts and his dream of a legacy, so an already compromised court, because the Chief Justice cannot discard his hubris, has lost any willingness to serve the Constitution, and floats in the warm tidal pool of vestigial symbolism as the Marxists entrench...
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2021-04-01 12:55  

#10  Agree with #1.
Posted by: JohnQC   2021-04-01 11:03  

#9  What Darth said.
Posted by: Raj   2021-04-01 09:52  

#8  Roberts is compromised, the liberals are crooked and the rest are cowards.

'nuff said.
Posted by: DarthVader   2021-04-01 09:44  

#7  Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are judges the other 6 are political cowards. Constitutional Convention?
Posted by: irish rage boy   2021-04-01 08:49  

#6  The whole court was compromised when it became the end-a-around to Article V amending process to the Constitution. It assumed powers well beyond anything intended for a branch who's members sit for life and are unaccountable to the people. Power has a tendency to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was the first open display of us becoming an oligarchy, ending the era of the old republic.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2021-04-01 07:19  

#5  I believe Roberts is compromised.
Posted by: Spoter B   2021-04-01 06:24  

#4  One side has shown both capability and intent to inflict economically devastating damage on the US.

The other side has remained more than mostly peaceful and is taking pride in this posture.

The Courts' #1 priority is keeping the peace, so they had no choice but to appease the violent by scr**ing the peaceful.

The Courts' refusal to hear the cases was no surprise.

In 2000 both sides remained peaceful, hence the Courts heard the cases.
Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660   2021-04-01 05:28  

#3  ...and justice for all.

Yeah, right.
Posted by: Clem   2021-04-01 04:58  

#2  ...Embrace the healing power of 'and'...

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2021-04-01 04:40  

#1  Yes to all three.
Posted by: Besoeker   2021-04-01 03:51  

00:00