SCOTUS - Will They Stem The Tide of Tyranny?

Something has gone very wrong with this election, so now it comes down to this...  

"Texas Asks Supreme Court to Rule Election in 4 Battleground States Unconstitutional"

The future of our long-standing and fiercely proud Republic is now in the capable hands of the most storied group of jurists in the world, the United States Supreme Court.  Upon its broad shoulders rests not only the outcome of this country's most important election but the sheer, ponderous weight of the integrity and strength of our Constitution and the tyranny it stands against. 

In question is the "Election Clause" of the Constitution, which confers the power to regulate election rules to the state legislatures, and the state legislatures only.  Not the Governor, not the Secretary of State, not local officials or election judges. 

In Pennsylvania, the lawsuit alleges "...Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar unilaterally and without legislative approval modified several state statutes requiring signature verification for absentee and mail-in ballots."  The suit also alleges the State Supreme Court unilaterally "...extended that deadline to three days after Election Day."

In Georgia, the lawsuit alleges "...Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, unilaterally and without legislative approval, abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.  The statute prohibits the opening of absentee ballots until after polls open on Election Day, but in April the State Election Board adopted a rule issued by Raffensperger that authorized county election officials to begin processing ballots up to three weeks prior."

The lawsuit also objects to "... an agreement Raffensperger entered into in settlement of a lawsuit brought against him by the Georgia Democratic Party, which changed the statutory signature verification requirements. The settlement made it more difficult to reject questionable ballots by requiring a registrar who suspected a defective signature to seek a review by two other registrars, a majority vote to discard the ballot, and additional obstacles like all three registrars having to sign their names on the rejected ballot and write down the reason for its rejection."

In Michigan, the lawsuit claims "...Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, unilaterally and without legislative approval, abrogated Michigan election statutes relating to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.

And "...while the Michigan constitution provides for “no excuse” mail-in voting, Benson announced in May that her office would send unsolicited absentee-voter applications by mail to all 7.7 million registered voters, in violation of Michigan Election Law, which does not give the Secretary of State the power to distribute absentee ballot applications."

In Wisconsin, the lawsuit argues "...the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws in a way that weakened or entirely removed established safeguards to ensure absentee ballot integrity."

One of these modifications "...involved the establishment of hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots, including ones that were unmanned.  However, the use on any dropbox, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute,” the lawsuit states.

The suit continues "...that the WEC and local election officials encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” so that they could, under Wisconsin law, avoid security measures like photo ID requirements and signature verification when applying to vote absentee,"  while citing "... the guidance [was] issued by Dane County and Milwaukee County clerks indicating that all voters should mark themselves as “indefinitely confined” due to the pandemic."

So now what?

I don't think SCOTUS can deny the unconstitutionality of any of the allegations stated above.  They all happened, exactly the way they are described.  The allegations are fact - and the reasons for those decisions are not of any consequence and should not be taken into consideration - there is, after all, no "pandemic exception" to the constitution.  Changes were made to election rules by people, rather than the state legislatures - and that is absolutely and unequivocally unconstitutional.

What would be the results of a SCOTUS ruling that found all of this was constitutional?

It would mean from here on out, states could (and of course would) change election laws on the whim of state officials, at any time, right up to election day and for any reason that benefited the states ruling party.  Our constitution would be in tatters and we would have election after election harmed not only by political potentates but also harmed by the instinctive distrust of all Americans in each election's integrity.

So what happens if SCOTUS rules in favor of the lawsuit - and our constitution?

At the very least it would protect future elections from this kind of interference. But that being said, there is no guarantee the Court would go further in their decision and overturn the election. There is no guarantee the court would rule the affected states legislatures should decide the electors sent to vote at the electoral college on December 14th.  There just aren't any guarantees as to how far-reaching a victory for our constitution would be.

My personal opinion is the Court should rule those state actions as unconstitutional, and as such, those state legislatures must select electors to be sent to the Electoral College to vote for the next President.  SCOTUS should not take into consideration the disenfranchised voters of each state, as that is not a constitutional question, but an emotional one. SCOTUS is not in place to rule on the fairness or equity of an outcome, they are not there to make legal excuses to justify ideological or emotional leanings, they are there to rule only on the constitutionality of the legislation and that alone.  

If a ruling comes down that overturns the election results or forces state legislatures to select electors, disenfranchised voters can - and should - file a class action civil suit against those state officials who not only defied the constitution and the will of the people but went behind the backs of their own legislators in hopes of swaying an election. Those state officials have only themselves to blame for the position they, their constituents, and their state elections are in, and any outcome handed down by SCOTUS that goes against them.

I can only hope those on the court have the integrity, strength, and belief in the righteousness of the constitution to hand down a ruling that holds true Abraham Lincolns' quote...

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the constitution."

Say a prayer for our country - we are going to need it, no matter which side wins. 

UPDATED TO ADD: At approximately 6:00 on 12/11/2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in an apparent 7-2 decision, refused to hear the suit on the supposed basis Texas does not have standing to bring a suit (how any citizen or state of this country doesn't have 'standing' to bring a suit in a NATIONAL ELECTION is beyond me). Justice Alito and Thomas dissented.  At this writing, President Trump is contemplating filing the same basic suit in the swing states, as he would have standing.  

CLICK TO FOLLOW - THE RANT

the share buttons below now include MeWe and a host of others