On December 11, 2020, the “Supreme Court” of the United States, where Trump personally nominated three justices, once again “betrayed” him on the issue of the election! This made Trump and Republican supporters feel desperate and angry, the world’s number one internet celebrity immediately took to Twitter to spit on these “despicable and shameless people”…
The author of the real House of Cards series started late last year
The author of the real House of Cards series has had a vague feeling
Maybe he’s playing the role of Thucydides.
When Thucydides set out to record what was happening in Athens.
Athens, he had no idea that the words he wrote
Would eventually become, thousands of years later
A key historical source for the study of the demise of ancient Greek democracy.
The present record may be confusing to future generations
But there will still be wise people who can read it.
Screenshot from the Texas Tribune 11
Screenshot from Capitol Hill 12
This article is an explanation of the plot of the classic American series Garden of Secrets
True House of Cards Season 4 Episode 12 (12)
As mere mortals who cannot predict the future, we have been recording the events of the present in a humble tone, but it is this style of writing that has drawn the scorn of some extremists. In the comments section, “You are totally wrong! The Supreme Court of the United States is bound to dispense justice…” and “You are not responsible for the justice’s statements” were among the insults and prejudgments. However, such views were immediately smacked in the face, and we still can’t bear to add insult to injury to these readers because they are in despair.
Since Nancy Pelosi was able to successfully use false statements to launch the “impeachment process” against the current president last year, we have adopted the tone of “Twilight of the Empire” for the script planning of the fourth season of “The Real House of Cards. Too many politicians care only about “political correctness” and ignore the most basic justice in the world, and the swamp of corruption in Washington has long flooded the entire legislative, judicial and executive spheres. This is an indisputable fact.
But this does not mean that the turmoil at the end of 2020 will end in a “total victory” for Democrats, because there is no way back for Republicans across America.
1
U.S. Supreme Court dismisses Texas lawsuit
On Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court quickly dismissed a risky Texas lawsuit against battleground state election fraud, which had become the only “chance for a peaceful resolution” that Republicans across the country were holding their breath for.
In a few brief sentences, the high court said that for
procedural reasons
that it would not consider accepting the case because
Texas lacks standing to bring such a lawsuit.
.
The Texas court held the election on Friday night in a different, non-judicial manner.
The elites at the Supreme Court sure know how to play politics and tried to have it both ways, telling the people of Texas in their ruling, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest that is relevant to conducting an election in another state.” (That means, in layman’s terms, that it’s none of your business if there’s fraud in another state’s elections. Even if all the other states are rotten, it’s not your turn to complain about Texas…)
With the deadline for the U.S. Electoral College to produce a president rapidly approaching, the Supreme Court’s ruling may have ended all hope that President Trump could overturn the election count through a legal lawsuit.
In a matter of national prominence, Texas this week sued Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin over election results on the grounds that those states implemented a change in election procedures related to the epidemic emergency, a change that Texas claims is unconstitutional and which renders the election’s across-the-board results highly suspect. In their reply briefs, these battleground states countered that Texas had no standing to impugn the election procedures of other states.
Apparently, legal experts immediately issued comments that if Texas prevailed, the case would set a dangerous precedent that would allow states to interfere in each other’s affairs and allow courts to overturn the results of elections that had been determined and confirmed by state officials. So, in the eyes of jurists, what matters is not whether some states cheated, but that the “independent sovereignty of the states” and the power structure of the United States must be preserved.
“Let’s be clear,” Pennsylvania’s lawyers wrote in the state’s reply brief, “Texas invited the Supreme Court to overturn the vote of the people of our state in an attempt to elect their preferred next president of the United States. We must firmly reject this Faustian invitation.”
Yes, the Texas lawsuit relies heavily on those allegations of election fraud against swing states. However, election officials in those states and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have said that “there is no evidence of election fraud on a scale that could have affected the outcome of the election.” (Note that here the Attorney General and state officials are talking about a concept of “volume,” meaning that they do not deny that there was a lot of fraud, but that they believe that all of it could hardly have overturned the results of the election count.)
The lawsuit unleashed in Texas has quickly developed into a national dividing line between blue and red states – and for Republicans, a test of their loyalty to Trump. Yesterday, some Republican-dominated state capitals refused to side entirely with Trump in the case; Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said, “The legally correct decision may not be the politically convenient one.” Yet, even so, the vast majority of Republican states have chosen to join the Texas camp.
So far this month, Trump himself, and Republicans across the country, seem to be pinning their hopes on Texas winning the lawsuit, with Trump even announcing that he himself is going to be one of the plaintiffs. In a series of tweets, the president called it “a big deal” and later said, “It’s so big that all the criteria are met (for the threshold of a major historical event).”
As of Thursday night, the huge cross-state partisan battle has drawn participation from nearly every state, with more than a dozen or even 20 contenders on each side and the involvement of more than 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including more than a dozen Texas Republicans. Jody Arrington, Brian Babin, Kevin Brady, Michael Burgess, Michael Crowder, Mike Conaway, Dan Crenshaw, Bill Flores, Louie Gohmert, Lance Gooden, Kenny Marchant, Randy Webb, Roger Williams and Ron Wright have all become central players in the case… …
If, and when, the Supreme Court hears the case, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz says he will go in and participate in the debate at Trump’s invitation.
But former Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice John Cornyn has said he is only “unconvinced” by the logic of the case.
Court watchers say the case will be a long shot from the start. Trump has hinted that he wants the Supreme Court, which currently includes three of his appointees, to move the election in his favor, but the justices have not shown any interest in doing so. The justices are appointed for life and have supreme power; the legislative, executive and even fourth branch of the media have no way to check the justices, and the president is always “running” and retiring in a heartbeat, so why should they help Trump?
Earlier this week, the court dismissed a similar lawsuit by Pennsylvania Republicans seeking to challenge Biden’s victory in the battleground state. (See the order of decisions? The justices’ prime minister was dismissing a lawsuit by native Pennsylvania Republicans, squashing them without even giving decent reasons; then the justices dismissed a Texas lawsuit against those states on the grounds that outsiders have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states…)
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would allow Texas to bring the lawsuit, but said “no other relief will be granted.” None of Trump’s appointees said they thought the lawsuit had any merit.
Legal experts in Washington say the lawsuit is dangerous and its purpose is unprecedented. “It’s garbage, but it’s dangerous garbage,” said Rick Hasson, a Washington election law expert. And Rep. Ken Paxton, who served as Texas attorney general, and his one-time deputy, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, called the case “a dangerous violation of federalism” that “will almost certainly fail “.
The case is a happy one for Trump, who had hoped the court would give him a victory. His campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits across the country, repeatedly losing and being thwarted at every turn, despite a legal team that includes some of the nation’s best-known legal minds. The whispers that the Supreme Court was attempting to take the case had excited many of his supporters, and yet, this is what has come to pass.
At the same time, the case carries significant stakes for Paxton, who filed the lawsuit at the lowest point on the roller coaster of his 20-year political career. According to the Austin American Statesman, Paxton was again in the spotlight this week, at the center of a conservative media ecosystem that touts his pro-Trump efforts on a daily basis – even though, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) served a subpoena on the Texas attorney general’s office as part of an investigation into his alleged criminal activities.
Yes, you read that correctly, while Paxton was throwing his weight around to save Trump, Texas nativists, eight of his top aides, wrote a letter to prosecute him and alerted the FBI, arguing that Paxton was using the agency’s executive power to provide help to political donor Paul, in violation of U.S. law, and should be arrested. Their allegations immediately drew in FBI agents, according to local media reports.
In the local political arena, a conspiracy theory even began to circulate that “Paxton may have used the lawsuit to help Trump win more presidential seats, and then, as a personal friend, to seek a presidential pardon from Trump. In the face of such media accusations, Paxton’s spokesman responded today: “It’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory!
2
U.S. President publicly scolds Supreme Court
Today, President Trump publicly scolded the lawmakers after learning of the statements of his most trusted justices, who were disappointed by their decision to reject Texas’ overturning a battleground state election lawsuit, calling it a “shameful miscarriage of justice.
Trump tweeted his frustration last night, writing, “The Supreme Court has really let us down. They have no wisdom and even less courage!”
Trump continued to express his anger Saturday morning in response to Fox News host Sean Hannity.
“Judges Alito and Thomas said it! They’re going to allow Texas to proceed with the election lawsuit…”
Sean Hannity said this was a huge and shameful miscarriage of justice. The American people have been cheated and our country has been disgraced. (These judges) never even gave us a chance to go to court!” The president wrote that he was referring to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who had promised to take the case and actually saw Texas file a brief, but issued a dissenting statement dismissing the lawsuit. This led to the loss of the court response that Trump and top Republicans had been plotting for so long…
Today Twitter put a red “disinformation stamp” on the president
Apparently Twitter can’t wait to block his number
The statement, in fact, said that the Supreme Court has an obligation to hear interstate disputes, but they did have to say that they agreed with the other seven justices who sided with the dissent and dismissed the Texas lawsuit.
The Supreme Court’s weekend ruling is the latest blow to Trump’s legal path to overturning election results. When Texas filed its brief, 18 state attorneys general and 126 House members were united in support of the lawsuit. So much noise was ultimately rewarded with an outright dismissal. This came as a shock to Trump and Republican supporters.
3
Texas Officials Move to Form a “Coalition to Protect the Law”
The Supreme Court’s forceful dismissal of the petition filed by Texas has infuriated the state’s Republican Party chairman, Allen West. On the same day, the Republican leader immediately began to attack the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a bad start to “undermine the U.S. Constitution.
Screenshot from Capitol Hill 12
However, West made a “suggestion” in his statement. He claimed that the Texas Republican Party would always abide by the U.S. Constitution and said that all law-abiding states could, perhaps, “
unite
” and form a “
Constitution-compliant Federation of States
“. The Hill believes that his statement is a clear indication of the intent of “Republican states to form a team to secede from the U.S. union.”
“So many states and 106 members of Congress supported the Texas lawsuit, yet the Supreme Court ruling tells us that a state can blatantly violate the Constitution, break election regulations, and harm other states without being sanctioned by law.” West roared.
West accused the U.S. Supreme Court of making a decision that would “profoundly affect American constitutionalism,” saying the justices’ lethargic decision set a precedent for “states to violate the U.S. Constitution without being held accountable. He then made a “suggestion” that “we the states should unite, and a union of states to guard the Constitution of the United States will be born.”
In closing, West wrote in his diatribe, “The Republican Party of Texas, will always uphold the Constitution and its laws, whether or not other states approve.”
Democrats immediately verbally attacked West: “Lincoln’s party is actually getting divisive.” Legislators of all stripes were also up in arms. However, by the same logic, since the Supreme Court ruled that Texas has no standing to “talk down” to other states, what reason do legislators from other states have to spit on the Republican chairman of Texas at today’s meeting? According to the Supreme Court’s statement, West does not have a “de facto conflict of interest” with you, so what proof do you have that his “formation of a coalition to protect the law” is hurting your states?
So the villains of the U.S. Supreme Court have really “gotten off to a bad start”. Because they have made it their daily routine to make unadulterated peace …… but whenever they encounter a hot case, they play politically correct and refuse to take up the fight or make moves that anger a large portion of the electorate, isn’t that exactly the way the Supreme Court played it before the Civil War broke out?
The first states that went for Texas are shown in red
They are clearly connected on the map
As the map shows, if the “Confederacy” is really established, and, Texas is also a state with a large number of troops, economic dependence on foreign countries and a large number of Texans in the upper echelons of the U.S. military, and the people of these states generally despise the people of California and New York …… this is exactly like the layout before the start of the Great Disruption of 1860.
Now, the only variables come from Trump himself. He’s a businessman, a staunch pacifist, and has made “ending war” his biggest “achievement” since taking office. If Trump does endorse the formation of a “coalition to protect the law” in nearly 20 states and lead the troops to war himself ……… does not look very consistent with his philosophy. However, some in the military want him to do so.
Garden Commentary: Where should Trump go from here? Time is running out, the path to judicial action is blocked, and the Democrats are partying and talking about a “complete reckoning” with Trump’s family and supporters. Will Trump organize a backlash against these states that support him? Although the probability is not so great, but the final plot is still difficult to predict.
Recent Comments