A lawyer I once worked for used to tell me that I have an “overdeveloped sense of right and wrong”. He said that I see things as either right or wrong and there’s not much room in the middle of the two. I’m pretty sure he meant it as an insult, but I chose to take it as a compliment. Some things really are either right or wrong.
For example, I believe that if you cheat, you lose.
In fact, the United States Supreme Court has stated “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”
In other words. If you cheat, you lose.
The cheater loses, but only if someone can prove that the cheating occurred.
The Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked the United States Supreme Court to review evidence proving election fraud was committed in Pennsylvania during the 2020 election. The Court refused, saying that the case is moot. The word “moot”, in this instance, means that the case has little or no practical value, meaning or relevance.
Really?
I can think of nothing that has more practical value, meaning or relevance than ensuring our election process is fair and that it represents the true will of the people. Yet the Court refuses to hear the case.
Trump, and his supporters have been asking for the opportunity to present evidence since mid-November. Because, if they can prove election fraud existed, then the election doesn’t count. But it’s actually more than that. Because the outcome of such a trial could protect us against election fraud for generations to come.
While those with TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) have erroneously claimed that the “courts have ruled the evidence has no merit”, this isn’t true. The massive evidence that we’ve all (well, those of us paying attention) have seen has never been presented to any court of law.
Instead, courts have dismissed the cases on technicalities. For example, efforts to stop a fraudulent election before it happened were dismissed because you can’t claim harm from something that hasn’t happened yet. But now that the election is over, the technicality is, essentially, “why bother”? The election is over and it’s not like we’re going to redo the election. Right? So, there’s no point in hearing any of the evidence because it won’t make a difference.
The evidence still hasn’t been presented before a court of law. The Supreme Court didn’t hear any of the evidence. They chose not to listen. With the exception of justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas, the Court essentially covered its collective ears and said, “la-la-la-la, I can’t hear you, la-la-la-la”.
Perhaps this is just my “overdeveloped sense of right and wrong” talking but what I’m seeing is nothing less than dereliction of duty. The Court is not only refusing to right a wrong, they’re also refusing to prevent any similar wrongs from happening in the future. They’re not willing to hear what is by far the most important case in any of our lives. Isn’t that what we’re paying them to do?
I used to believe that the United States Supreme Court was the one place where justice would prevail. I believed that if the truth was on your side, they had the power to make things right.
Maybe they still do. But they also have the power to say, “why bother” and thumb their noses at our right to free and fair elections.
I, like millions of other voters, have been “dissed” by the Supreme Court of the United States in three different ways. By their action, or more accurately, their inaction, we have been dismissed, disenfranchised and disillusioned.
