(TeaParty.org Exclusive) – Now that Joe Biden sits in the White House fraudulently, the Supreme Court of the United States is going to begin considering whether or not to accept several important election lawsuits.
The Washington Examiner reported that among the lawsuits up for consideration by the SCOTUS are cases filed by lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell as well as by Rep. Mike Kelly from PA.
In the weeks after the stolen election, it became clear that the Supreme Court was not going to get involved in any cases involving election integrity prior to the inauguration. They rejected the idea that the cases needed to be fast-tracked so that Americans could have confidence in the election results.
Despite the fact that Biden has been inaugurated, these cases are still highly relevant and should be heard by the SCOTUS. Attorney John Eastman, who was recently fired by the University of Colorado after he dared to represent President Trump, says these cases are “in need of the court’s review.”
The nation’s highest court had previously refused to expedite challenges from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If accepted by the Supreme Court the cases will likely not begin hearing arguments until October.
Attorney Jonathan Moseley pointed out one case the Supreme Court probably should have most definitely taken in a commentary for WND.
Moseley noted that the Supreme Court threw out a case brought by Texas and 17 other states on the grounds of a technicality rather than its merits. The complaint argued that allegations of election fraud needed to be heard because fraudulent results in one state impacted all the other states because the election was a national election.
This is indeed true. If fraudulent elections in one state give the state’s electors to a fraudulent winner that most definitely impacts the entire country.
The Supreme Court claimed Texas didn’t have standing to make a claim for review but Moseley says that the problem with the whole “standing” argument is that the Supreme Court invented the idea of “standing.”
“It only really got going as late as the 1970s. The governing, landmark Lujan precedent dates back only to 1992,” he wrote.
“So, the Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit by Texas by a 7-2 margin, stating: ‘The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.'”
Moseley pointed out Texas didn’t ask to dictate the “manner in which another state conducts its elections.” It only asked that all states be required to follow the US Constitution, which clearly several states did not.
The Constitution gives sole authority to state legislatures to set up election processes in each state. During the 2020 election this authority was usurped by state executives and courts that made changes to election laws and procedures without the involvement or consent of the legislature.
These incidents were clear violations of the Constitution and the SCOTUS refused to take the case and there seems to have yet to be any ramifications for the state officials who violated the Constitution.
Moseley asserts that by refusing to hear that case they “threw all future elections into doubt.”
“This will go down as destructive as the Dred Scott decision that spurred us into the Civil War,” he said.
Indeed it does appear to have been a grave misstep for the SCOTUS to refuse to hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania case.
Hopefully, should the high court decide to hear any cases on election integrity it won’t be too late to matter.
Copyright 2021. TeaParty.org