On December 6, celebrities such as Fox’s Mark Levin spoke out to urge the Supreme Court to address the serious issues that have arisen in the election. The case that is getting the most attention at the moment is a case brought by Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Mike Kelly and others against the unconstitutionality of the state’s Act 77, which involves mail-in ballots. As the 2020 election has become a political battle between guarding American values or destroying them, and holding on to America or de-Americanizing it, grassroots justice has been severely distorted, and the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that, for grassroots judges, justice has given way to serving partisan political interests.
Americans Have High Expectations for Fair Judgment in High Court Cases
Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Mike Kelly, Republican congressional candidate Sean Parnell and others have challenged the constitutionality of the state’s Act 77 over the state’s campaign integrity and have sued the state in federal court, where Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough has ruled that the constitutionality of Act 77 is unconstitutional. (McCullough) requires the state to stop the state from certifying election results and requires the state to refrain from taking certification measures until election-related hearings are held. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order reversing McCullough’s ruling was far-fetched, saying that the plaintiffs had filed their complaint too late. Senator Kelly and others take the case to the federal Supreme Court, asking for an emergency order revoking the certification of Pennsylvania’s elections and prohibiting the Governor from sending the results to Congress. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s previous request was for the Pennsylvania government to file on the morning of December 9, raising concerns that this date was outside the safe harbor window of the law. The change to December 8 was seen as a key move by Justice Alito, as the original deadline failed to place the case within the “safe harbor” window for intervention.
The case relates to the high incidence of fraudulent mail-in ballots in the 2020 election. In early October, before the election, I wrote about “The U.S. Election Boondoggle: A Mail-in Ballot to Fix Everything? We’ve talked about mail-in ballot fraud, and it’s happened before. With regard to election fraud, among the six swing states, except Wisconsin has not yet held hearings, since November 28, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada have held six consecutive hearings (Michigan held two hearings on December 2-3). As long as one listens to these hearings without prejudice, anyone with a sense of justice will believe that the American judicial system should have prevented the biggest election theft in American history. However, in the United States, where the local judiciary has become heavily partisan, these cases, which are well supported by the evidence, have been dismissed on various technical grounds, and some judges have even refused to accept the material. https://hereistheevidence.com目前已经收集到923个证人的证词 covers 1,218,281 ballots, but has been rejected by 31 of them. The courts above have refused to allow the introduction of evidentiary hearings. According to the Associated Press, more than 30 of the roughly 50 cases brought by the Trump campaign and its allies nationwide have been denied or dismissed.
The absurdity of the verdict keeps showing up in this round of verdicts on election fraud. One example is the California state court case of Governor Newsom’s use of the emergency law to expand mail-in ballots, in which the judge held that Governor Newsom’s abuse of the emergency law to expand mail-in ballots was indeed unconstitutional, and ruled that Newsom would never have to use the law to do the same thing again, but kept the election results. Similar rulings have been made in recent decisions in Nevada and Michigan, which did not deny the existence of election fraud, but rejected it on some technical grounds. U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten ruled, after a hearing lasting about an hour, that “the relief sought by Plaintiffs cannot be granted by this Court,” and that Plaintiffs’ request for denial of certification is “the most unusual relief sought by an election lawsuit. “Allowing this case to stand would be tantamount to “judicial activism,” far beyond his authority.
Hopes are thus pinned on the Supreme Court, especially on a few justices who are considered conservative.
The Origin of the Justices: The Last Constitutional Wall
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States, and are currently numbered at eight according to the Judicial Code of 1869.
Justices have a special political status in the United States, being the only high public office with a lifetime appointment. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, judges of the Supreme Court and inferior courts are guaranteed loyalty, receive a regular salary, and may not be diminished during their continued service. This means that once appointed, a Justice is “appointed for life” unless he or she dies, resigns, voluntarily retires, or is removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives or conviction by the Senate. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1789, 103 people have served as justices.
The Supreme Court justices have been entrusted with the task of guarding the Constitution for life in the hope that they will be the last strong wall of the Constitution. For the first decade or so of my 20 years of residence in the United States, Americans were very critical of many political figures, but held the justices of the high court in high esteem because they were the best of the legal elite and deserved that respect, both in terms of prestige and professional competence, as well as their historical record. This was the case until recent years, when the professionalism of Supreme Court justices was undermined by their political positions, and the climate changed. The left’s love for the justices is based solely on their political needs rather than the professionalism of the judges; Justice Ginsburg made an inappropriate comment about presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2016 that he later learned was wrong, apologized, and retracted, but the left cheered it and spread it around as their bull; but the very few public statements made by conservative justices are subject to their malicious speculation.
Justices have the duty and ability to uphold the Constitution
Among the justices of the high court, except for Ginsburg, who is a media star, most of them are reticent. This year’s U.S. election has thrust several conservative justices on the high court into the limelight, and their words and actions have been over-read and harshly criticized by the leftist media, starting with Justice Alito.
On the evening of November 13 of this year – ten days after the election, mind you – Justice Alito addressed the annual convention of the Federalist Society, making several references to freedom of religions and freedom of The importance of speech, harshly condemned the actions of some Democratic members of Congress to interfere in the administration of justice, “Let’s get back to something fundamental, the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution, not by Congress, and under the Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises the judicial power of the United States, and Congress has no right to interfere. And stressing the high court’s responsibility to ensure that freedom of speech does not become secondary, he also referred to the Second Amendment right to bear arms, citing the June 15, 2020, U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 6 to 3, that LGBTQ employees are also protected under Title VII of the CivilRights Act (TITLE VII) of 1964, which The provision prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for a variety of reasons. The three dissenting justices were conservatives Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, making them targets of leftist attacks. In response, he recounted the personal account of a colleague who told of a high court judge in a military junta who had been intimidated by a ruling that was not to the liking of the junta, which drove a tank into the judge’s window and used it to express its determination: “The duty of judges is not to compromise on principles, nor to make excuses for what they do when they deviate from them. I am confident that this Supreme Court will not do so for years to come,” meaning that he would not give in even if a tank’s cannon was pointed at his window.
Following the release of the annual message, the Democratic Party was extremely unhappy with the message and published a number of articles criticizing it. The most emblematic was Elliot Mincberg, a Democrat and former chief oversight attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, who on November 20 published a critique of Justice Alito’s speech in The Hill in very rude terms, arguing that it could be characterized as hyper-partisan, inflammatory, extraordinarily political, tendentious, and judicially Trumpian in the sense of a Trump rally. phrases to describe the speech. He further notes that, more ominously, this is Alito’s invitation to far-right litigants, suggesting that they can’t wait to take advantage of the Court’s enhanced right-wing majority to pursue projects like overturning LGBTQ and reproductive rights – and, of course, the upcoming election fraud lawsuit. And then threatening to legislate new ethical standards for the justices – the federal courts have been targets of the left before, and Pack The Court is one of their ongoing attacks.
Now, as revelations of fraud become more widespread, half of the U.S., represented by Trump, is increasingly angry, and on December 1, Tea Party Chairman Thomas R. Zawistowski, in a We the People Convention speech, demanded that President Trump issue a national martial law decree that one person, under military supervision, should be allowed to vote in the election. The call for a clean and safe presidential re-election is increasingly being heard in small and medium-sized media outlets and websites, and voters in the Midwest, many of whom are already considering exercising their Second Amendment right to defend their political rights with arms. In the face of a house divided in two and a fire growing in the United States, it is time for the federal high court justices to do their constitutional duty.
Recent Comments