On Monday, March 1, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases filed by Texas attorney Sidney Powell challenging the results of last year’s Nov. 3 election. A panel of commentators from the Conservative Political Action Conference (PCAC) said that the U.S. Supreme Court and judicial system failed in their duty by not hearing cases regarding last November’s election.
Powell’s Election Petition Rejected Again
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Powell’s petition regarding the results of the Nov. 3 elections in Wisconsin and Arizona, but did not explain why, according to the Law and Crime website.
In both cases, Powell lawyers urged the Supreme Court to consider the importance of the cases to the American public and the urgency of hearing them, and asked the Supreme Court to answer the following questions, the report said.
Do American voters have standing to challenge the fraudulent and illegal conduct that led to the defeat of a candidate in the general election?
Should a federal court exercise jurisdiction to investigate the 2020 presidential election when voters determine that the results were stolen because the state in question violated the powers granted to voters in the U.S. Constitution’s provisions on elections and voters, equal protection and due process?
Would a voter’s request that the state stop certifying the election results and legally bar the opposing electoral college from voting (on fraudulent election results) be precluded by state law restrictions, such as the recertification provision for rereading ballots?
Does the remedial power of the federal courts under the U.S. Code include the power to invalidate an unconstitutional election and to enjoin the electoral college of the state in question from voting in such an invalid election?
However, the Supreme Court did not answer any of the questions posed by Powell’s lawyers on Monday, nor did they explain why they refused to answer them.
CPAC: Supreme Court Failure Led to Jan. 6 Congressional Riot
The Conservative Political Action Conference held a Feb. 26 symposium called “Protecting Elections” to discuss the issues raised by the U.S. judicial system and the media’s refusal to view evidence in the 2020 election. They argued that the Supreme Court has failed in its duty by refusing to hear these election fraud cases because they have made such decisions without examining the legal basis for them.
Virginia attorney Jesse Binnall, Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans Von Spakovsky, and Fox News contributor Deroy Murdock attended the panel, which was moderated by Denise Cohen of the American Conservative Union Foundation. The symposium was moderated by Denise Cohen of the American Conservative Union Foundation.
Murdock said it is the Supreme Court’s job to hear tough cases, so for the Supreme Court not to hear them would be like an umpire at a baseball game refusing to handle a dispute in the game in front of the crowd, “the high court is not doing its job,” he said, “and the ensuing (Jan. 6) riots have nothing to do with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases. The riots that followed (Jan. 6) had a lot to do with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the results of the decisions in those cases. The judges of the Supreme Court thus bear a great deal of responsibility for the outbreak of the riots.”
Spakovsky, for his part, believes that the U.S. media is behaving in a perverse manner in the 2020 election. He said, “Normally, if the media finds a story of election fraud, they would be busy reporting it and investigating the cause of the crime. But this Time, the media didn’t bother to interview the witnesses at all.”
Binal described an election fraud appeal he filed in Nevada. He described how Nevada’s high court gave his team only two hours to file the legal papers for their appeal. While this legal paperwork often takes weeks, or even months, to prepare, the Nevada high court took only two hours to deny their request after they filed 40 pages of court documents.
The high court claimed that the court documents we filed did not describe the errors made in the lower court’s ruling, but our materials included that section,” he said. This suggests that the high court’s ruling was pre-written before the appeal document was filed, as they estimated that our team would not be able to file this document in just two hours.”
Recent Comments