Categories
Commentary Election lawsuits Intelwars Politics Supreme Court Texas The 2020 Election the Supreme Court

The Stage Has Been Set For An Epic Battle Between Red States And Blue States At The Supreme Court

We have never seen anything like Texas v. Pennsylvania in the history of the Supreme Court.  A very large group of red states has lined up behind Texas, and a very large group of blue states is backing the other side.  I cannot recall another Supreme Court case in which so many states have sought to be involved on some level, and so to me it would be unthinkable for the Supreme Court to try to slap this suit away as if it was insignificant.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so if the Supreme Court is not willing to properly deal with the grievances that the red states have there is no other place for them to go.

I believe that the Supreme Court is going to handle this case with the seriousness that it deserves, and that means that we are about to witness an absolutely epic legal battle between red states and blue states.

In an article that I published yesterday, I explained that the Court had required the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to file their responses by Thursday at 3 PM, and that is precisely what happened.

But a whole bunch of other parties decided to get involved in this case as well.  The following are all of the updates that were posted on the Supreme Court website on Thursday alone

Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief not accepted for filing. (December 10, 2020) (corrected motion electronically filed)

Response to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or stay from defendant Wisconsin filed.

Opposition to Texas’s motion for leave to file bill of complaint and its motion for preliminary relief from defendant Georgia filed.

Opposition to motions for leave to file bill of complaint and for injunctive relief from defendant Michigan filed.

Opposition to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or stay from defendant Pennsylvania filed.

Motion for leave to file amicus brief from the District of Columbia on behalf of 22 States and Territories filed.

Motion to Intervene and Proposed Bill of Complaint in Intervention of State of Missouri submitted.

Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief for Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Defendants of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly submitted.

Motion of Certain Select Pennsylvania State Senators for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Christian Family Coalition for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Amicus brief of Bryan Cutler Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Kerry Benninghoff Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives submitted.

For Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.

Motion of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin, Senator Lora Reinbold, Representative David Eastment, et al. (Elected State Officials) for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Amicus brief of City of Detroit submitted.

Motion for Leave to File and Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff submitted.

Complaint in Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.

Amicus brief of Ga. state Sen. William Ligon et al. submitted.

Motion of L. Lin Wood for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Steve Bullock, in his official capacity as Governor of Montana for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

I have never seen a flurry of activity like this for any other Supreme Court case.

As you look over that list, you will see that there are all sorts of big names on there and nearly all states are represented in at least some capacity.

But there is one huge name that is completely missing.

For some reason, Joe Biden has decided not to be involved in this case at all.

I think that Joe Biden’s lawyers are telling him that it would give the case credibility if they got involved and they don’t want to do that.

But to me, this is a major tactical mistake on their part.  If Texas wins this case, Joe Biden will probably not be the one sitting in the Oval Office for the next four years.  With so much on the line, if I was a presidential candidate I would want to make sure that my interests were being represented properly in this case.

In any event, this case is moving forward, and the outcome will make history no matter which way it goes.

Needless to say, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia are very upset about the suit that Texas has filed.  In fact, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro went so far as to call the suit a “seditious abuse of the judicial process”

The Pennsylvania AG’s office described the Texas suit as a crass political maneuver to extend Trump’s term.

‘Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,’ they urged.

Of course that is a bunch of nonsense.

As I detailed yesterday, Texas is alleging very serious violations of the Electors Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in all four states, and the evidence clearly shows that those constitutional violations did indeed take place.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia would have us believe that Texas and other red states were not harmed by these constitutional violations, and they would have us believe that the Supreme Court could not possibly take any action even if there were constitutional violations because that would “disenfranchise” millions of voters.

But it wouldn’t disenfranchise those voters if the Court ordered new elections in those four states, and that is what I believe is the appropriate remedy in this case.

I know that is a minority viewpoint, but I am sticking with it.

On Thursday, the District of Columbia, 20 blue states, the Virgin Islands and Guam filed an amicus brief in support of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

An amicus brief had already been filed by a coalition of red states on Wednesday, and on Thursday six of them actually asked the court to allow them to become co-plaintiffs

Missouri on Wednesday led a group of 17 states in filing a brief that supported the Texas lawsuit, which alleges that the four key swing states that voted for President-elect Joe Biden violated the Constitution by having their judicial and executive branches make changes to their presidential elections rather than their legislatures.

But the Thursday filing led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, which also includes Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, would make those states parties before the court in the case rather than just outside voices weighing in. President Trump’s campaign did the same on Wednesday.

Subsequently, 106 Republican members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of Texas.

That has got to carry a lot of weight with the Court.

At this point, the Court is essentially boxed into a corner.  If they throw this case aside very quickly, that will cause a massive uproar on the right.

But if they actually allow oral arguments and give this case the attention that it deserves, that will cause a massive uproar on the left.

Whatever they do, about half the country is going to be exceedingly angry.

And if Texas v. Pennsylvania ultimately results in Trump winning the election, we will witness a national temper tantrum that will shake our nation to the core.

We have reached one of the most critical moments in American history, and the future of our Republic hangs in the balance.

Historically, the Supreme Court likes to try to find an easy way out, and they may be very tempted to try to dispose of this case very quickly.

But that wouldn’t solve anything.  I think that it is a very ominous sign that there is so much open animosity between red states and blue states now.  Just like we witnessed prior to the Civil War, states are picking one side or the other, and talk of secession is starting to pick up steam.  In fact, it was the top headline on the Drudge Report on Thursday morning.

And if the Supreme Court ignores the clear constitutional violations that occurred during this election, that will only make things a lot worse.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in his complaint, either we have a Constitution or we don’t.

That is what Texas v. Pennsylvania is really all about, and in a few days we will have a clear answer to that question.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
Commentary Election lawsuits Intelwars Politics Supreme Court Texas The 2020 Election the Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and his allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania, what happens next?

The big corporate news networks are trying to convince us that there is absolutely no way that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of President Trump and his allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania, but what if they are wrong?  The case is on the docket, and the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin have been ordered to file their responses by 3 PM on Thursday.  It appears that the Court understands the urgency of this matter, and they seem determined to move things along very quickly.  One way or the other, we should find out what they are thinking fairly rapidly.

In the first part of this series, I discussed the fact that 18 other states have now joined with Texas in arguing that the election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin cannot be allowed to stand.

And the more I examine the facts, the more I am convinced that their legal claims are right on target.

Everyone agrees that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin changed election rules without consulting their legislatures.  But the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority in determining how electors will be selected.  The rule changes that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin made were unconstitutional, and they had a material affect on the outcome in each of those states.

Similarly, everyone agrees that voters and ballots were treated very differently in left-leaning portions of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin than they were in right-learning portions of those states.  These are textbook violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court would have to be completely blind not to see that.

If the Supreme Court is faithful to the U.S. Constitution, the voting results in all four states will have to be thrown out.

But what happens then?

Well, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the Court to declare that all electoral votes from those four states should not be counted

In the suit, Paxton asks the high court to “declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.”

I do not believe that the Court will do that, because that would disenfranchise all of the legal voters in all of those states.

Alternatively, the Court could choose to direct the state legislatures in each of those four states to choose their own slates of electors, but I don’t think that the Court would be willing to do that either.

Instead, I believe that the most likely remedy would be new elections.  That would be problematic as well, because the results of those elections may not be known before the electoral votes are supposed to be counted in Washington on January 6th.

But even though new elections would be a chaotic solution, I believe that it is the best of the choices.

In any event, if the current election results are overturned by the Supreme Court and President Trump ultimately ends up winning, it will set off the biggest temper tantrum in all of U.S. history.

We have already seen widespread rioting, looting, arson and violence in our major cities all throughout 2020, and we have continued to see more civil unrest in recent weeks.  Just check out what just happened in Portland.

But if Trump ends up getting a second term after everything that has already transpired, we are going to see an explosion of anger that will be off the charts.

Already, politicians in some states are making decisions based on fear of what could potentially happen.  For example, members of the state legislature in Georgia were apparently afraid to call a special session to address problems with their elections because they were reportedly afraid that Atlanta “will burn” if they did…

In an interview with The Georgia Star News, State Representative Colton Moore (R-Trenton) shared that legislators are gun-shy about calling a special session to address the general and runoff elections.

“The attitudes that a lot of Republicans had was, ‘Let’s just say out of it and let the court decide.’ One legislator said [if they did call a session that] Atlanta will burn down a second time,” he said. “My personal theory is that the governor has prevented a special session because roughly half of the Republicans in the house don’t want to be responsible for that burden.”

I guarantee you that the potential for violence will weigh heavily on the minds of members of the Supreme Court as they consider the merits of Texas v. Pennsylvania.

I wish that wasn’t true, but the truth is that members of the Supreme Court are humans too.  If they are responsible for Biden losing the election, there is a very real possibility that radicals will violently attack them, their families and their homes.

Hopefully, there will be at least five justices that will be courageous enough to do what is right for the country no matter what the short-term consequences are.  As Sean Hannity recently explained, we have reached an absolutely critical moment in our history and the American people deserve answers…

“The country deserves it. You deserve it,” Hannity argued. “We, the people, deserve it. I don’t know what the justices are going to do, but the American people deserve answers. We need to have confidence in both the integrity and the results of every state’s election, in the process, because we have millions of innocent Americans in states where the law, the Constitution were not followed. They are, then, disenfranchised in a corrupt process.”

But no matter what happens, it is likely that the divisions in this country are just going to continue to grow deeper and deeper.

And as they get deeper, many are wondering if we will be able to stay united as a single nation.  For example, Rush Limbaugh seems to think that the U.S. is rapidly approaching a breaking point

“There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.”

“I know that there’s a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that that is where we’re headed whether we want to or not. Whether we want to go there or not.”

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution, and the frustration on both sides is only going to continue to grow.

Whether it is now or later, it appears to be inevitable that there will be a lot more civil unrest in our major cities, and that is extremely unfortunate.

In the beginning, the United States was united by a single set of values and principles, and those values and principles helped to make us into the greatest nation on the entire planet.

But now we have abandoned those values and principles, and as a result we have a giant mess on our hands.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
Commentary Election lawsuits Intelwars Politics Supreme Court Texas The 2020 Election the Supreme Court

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out.  The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election.  The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first.  But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

Well, it was put on the docket just 12 hours after it was filed, and so it will be heard.

And on Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defending states to file their answers by Thursday at 3 PM eastern time.

So this is really happening.

The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election after all.

In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

And he is absolutely correct.  When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.

According to the Electors Clause, state legislatures have the authority to establish how presidential electors will be chosen in their particular states, but Paxton alleges that government officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin made up their own rules and did not follow the election laws that had been passed by their own state legislatures

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” Paxton wrote in his filing.

“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed,” he wrote. “Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.”

Unlike the allegations of election fraud that are floating around out there, these allegations are very easy to prove.

The following is a brief summary of some of the issues in each of the four states that comes from the Heritage Foundation

  • Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
  • Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
  • Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
  • Wisconsin: Lastly, the Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

For these constitutional violations alone, the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

In addition, in his complaint Paxton alleges that voters in various parts of these states were treated very differently

Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.

As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”

Once again, this should be a slam dunk to prove based on the evidence that has already been publicly presented.

And without a doubt, differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On top of that, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court clearly prohibited “the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”.

Since differential standards in the treatment of ballots occurred in all four states, that should mean that the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

Lastly, Paxton alleges that there were “voting irregularities” in each of the four states, and those allegations are going to be more difficult to prove.

But Paxton doesn’t need to prove them, because the violations of the Electors Clause and the violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should both be slam dunks.

Assuming that is the case, what is the appropriate remedy?

Paxton is asking that the state legislatures of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be forced “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”

In each of those states, those legislatures could opt to hold new elections or alternatively they could decide to choose new slates of electors themselves.

And since all four of those state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that would seem to favor President Trump.

Needless to say, if the current election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are overturned, the left will have a massive temper tantrum.  Cities all over the nation would burn and we would see endless civil unrest for the foreseeable future.

So that may make some members of the Court hesitant to overturn the current election results no matter what the Constitution actually says.

But if there are at least five justices that are willing to follow the Constitution no matter what the consequences are, we may soon see the most shocking decision in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe. I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
christian Commentary Conservatives Intelwars Moral Crisis Politics Supreme Court the Supreme Court

The Open Supreme Court Seat Is A Final Test For Trump, Senate Republicans And America’s Conservatives

The sudden passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg shocked the entire country, and it has set up a battle for the ages in Washington.  Democrats are promising to fight with everything that they have got to keep that seat from being filled before the election, but in the end there isn’t that much they can do.  The Republicans control the White House and the U.S. Senate, and so they have the power to fill that seat if they wish to do so.  Unfortunately, there are already cracks in Republican solidarity.  Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have both publicly stated that they will not support a confirmation vote before election day, and two more defections would push Republicans below the 50 votes that they need to confirm a nominee.  But for the purposes of this article, I will assume that there will be no more defections.

I believe that this open Supreme Court seat represents a critical test.  But it is not a test for the Democrats.  We already know what they believe and where they stand, and they have absolutely no intention of changing.  So there is no need for Democrats to be weighed on the scales of justice, because that case is already closed.

Instead, I believe that this is a test for President Trump, for the Republicans in the U.S. Senate and for America’s conservatives.

By now, conservatives should have complete control of the Supreme Court.  15 of the last 19 justices have been nominated by Republican presidents, and if Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat is filled by President Trump that will make it 16 out of the last 20.

Sadly, we do not have a conservative Supreme Court at this point.  In fact, the Supreme Court has been very liberal for more than 50 years.

How in the world could this possibly have happened?

Well, the truth is that Democrats and Republicans have a completely different approach to Supreme Court nominations.  When a Democratic president nominates someone to the Supreme Court, they make sure that they know exactly what they are getting and they never make any mistakes.

But Republican presidents have nominated “conservatives” that have turned out to be very liberal time after time.

Just because a Republican president nominates a judge, that does not mean that he or she is “conservative”.  We’ve got to quit believing the mainstream media when they put those labels on judges, because the mainstream media should not be trusted.

For example, just consider Neil Gorsuch.  The mainstream media told us that he was “very conservative” when Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court, but instead he has voted with the liberals repeatedly.

But we shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he has turned out to be a liberal, because he was attending an extremely liberal church when he was nominated

And in a twist that may surprise religious conservatives who welcomed Gorsuch’s appointment, church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same sex couples.

The church, which trumpets its ‘inclusive’ ethos on its website, also operates a homeless outreach program that includes an LGBT center and a sexual health clinic in a pamphlet setting out the best places for those in need of help.

And Rev. Springer is so virulently anti-Trump that she attended “the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the President’s inauguration”.

Unfortunately, the red flags were ignored and Gorsuch is now a member of the Supreme Court.

Next, let’s talk about Brett Kavanaugh.  When he was nominated, the mainstream media couldn’t stop talking about how “conservative” he was, and the left passionately opposed his nomination.

But at the time, I strongly pointed out that conservatives should be the ones opposing his nomination, and the passage of time has proven that I was right.  Kavanaugh has also repeatedly voted with the liberals on the Court, and he has proven that he is not a social conservative at all.

When he was nominated, the way that he was able to get Republican Senator Susan Collins to vote for his confirmation was by assuring her that Roe v. Wade was a settled precedent and by essentially promising her that he would not vote to overturn it if the decision was going to be a 5 to 4 decision.  You can watch Susan Collins discuss her meeting with Kavanaugh right here.

There is no universe in which such a promise would be okay, and Kavanaugh’s nomination should have been immediately withdrawn once this became known.

Instead, Kavanaugh was confirmed and now we are stuck with him.

So now President Trump has a third opportunity to nominate a member of the Supreme Court, and this is a critical test for him.

The only acceptable option is for him to nominate a judge that will publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, and none of the candidates currently being discussed has done this.

After Trump nominates a judge, the Republicans in the Senate will also face a test.

If the judge that has been nominated will publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Republicans in the Senate have a duty to confirm that nominee before Trump’s term ends.

But if that judge will not publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Republicans in the Senate have a duty to reject that nominee.

Lastly, this process will also be a test for conservatives all over America.

In the past, conservatives across the country have gotten behind “conservative” nominees even though there were all sorts of red flags and even though none of them would publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As a result, we have the mess on the Court that we have today.

Now the conservatives of this country face one final test.

If we overwhelmingly reject any candidate that will not publicly pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, we will pass the test.

But if we just go along with whoever is nominated no matter what they believe like we have done before, then we will fail the test.

We have failed so many times before, and now we have one final chance.

If we get a third strike against us in less than four years, I fear that we may be all out of chances.

Already, I am seeing calls for President Trump to nominate a moderate judge because that will supposedly help his chances in November.

There is going to be so much pressure on Trump to make a choice for political reasons, and many Republicans in the Senate will also be feeling a tremendous amount of political pressure as well.

Let us hope that our leaders have the courage to make the right decisions, because this is a test that we simply cannot afford to fail.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  By purchasing the book you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
Commentary CORRUPTION Intelwars Politics Supreme Court the Supreme Court

The Conservative Effort To Reshape The Supreme Court Has Completely And Utterly Failed

It is time to admit the truth.  Throughout my entire lifetime, Republican presidential candidates have promised us that if we help get them elected they will move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction.  But it hasn’t happened.  A Republican has been in the White House for 31 of the last 51 years, and yet the left has enjoyed a virtually uninterrupted string of historic Supreme Court victories throughout that entire stretch.  And even though a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court right now have been appointed by Republicans, the left continues to win one major victory after another.

The reason why this has happened is because Republicans have failed over and over again to nominate true conservatives to the Supreme Court.  At this point, only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito can really be considered “conservatives”, and that means that liberal causes will continue to march forward at the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

Have you noticed that the liberal justices always vote the way that the left wants them to vote on key issues?

That is because the left doesn’t make mistakes when it comes to the Supreme Court.  Historically, they have always selected their nominees very, very carefully, and so they always knew exactly what they were getting.

On the other hand, conservatives have been conned into supporting Supreme Court nominees that were either “moderate” or openly liberal for decades.

It all started with Richard Nixon.  He nominated four justices to the Supreme Court, but instead of a more conservative court we ended up with Roe v. Wade.

Reagan and Bush combined to appoint five new justices to the Supreme Court, but Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter all turned out to be quite liberal.

George W. Bush gave us John Roberts, and conservatives all over the country cheered when he was confirmed.

But he has also turned out to be very liberal.  He has repeatedly voted with the liberal wing of the Court, and on Thursday he once again voted with them in the DACA case.

President Trump was quite upset that the Supreme Court overturned his decision to repeal DACA, and he immediately sent out a tweet calling for people to vote for him in November so that he can appoint “new justices”

President Trump, in the wake of Thursday’s defeat at the Supreme Court in his efforts to repeal the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, called for new justices as conservatives took aim at Chief Justice John Roberts for what they called a “pattern” of siding with the liberal wing in key decisions.

“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court. If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and … Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!” he tweeted.

If Trump had nominated rock solid conservatives so far, he would have a valid point.

But he did not do that.

Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have both turned out to be major disasters.  Earlier this week, Gorsuch actually wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court decision that ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to LGBTQ employees.  And even though Kavanaugh dissented for technical reasons, he still had very high praise for the decision…

“Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law. … They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.”

There were millions upon millions of conservative Americans that strongly supported Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as nominees, and now they realize that they got conned.

Of course this never would have happened if they had been vetted properly in the first place.

With Gorsuch, there was much to be concerned about

Neil Gorsuch’s treacherous deception was predictable, given the fact that Judge Gorsuch attended the ultra-liberal St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. His pastor, Rev. Susan Woodward Springer, is pro-LGBT, pro same-sex marriage and anti-Trump. Following the election of Donald J. Trump, she wrote that “her congregation should strive to behave as godly people who spread hope even though ‘the world is clasping its head in its hands and crying out in fear.’” That Sunday, following Trump’s victory, Neil Gorsuch was an usher in the morning service.

And I was strongly warning about Kavanaugh when he was nominated, but voices such as mine were completely drowned out by the flood of conservatives that were vigorously backing him.  They saw how much the left hated Kavanaugh, and so they assumed that he must be good.

But now we know the truth.

In any event, any future efforts to reshape the Supreme Court may come to a crashing halt if Joe Biden wins in November.  A new Fox News poll has Biden up by 12 points, and Biden is doing particular well with certain demographic groups

Biden has a 79-point advantage among black voters, a 37-point advantage among young people, a 22-point lead in the suburbs, and a 19-point lead among women. He also leads among voters over the age of 65 by 10 points.

Trump, meanwhile, leads by 41 points among evangelicals, although he carried Christians by 64 points in 2016. He leads by 9 points among rural voters, a demographic he won by 27 points in the last election.

At this point, it would take an enormous political miracle for Trump to win.

Of course we did see such a miracle in 2016, and in this political environment anything is still possible.

But even if Trump wins, would conservatives really be happy with more Supreme Court nominees like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

Ever since Richard Nixon first entered the White House, there has been opportunity after opportunity to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction, and the ball has been dropped time after time.

Collectively, it has been a colossal failure of epic proportions, and it is one of the big reasons why our nation is such a giant mess today.

About the Author: I am a voice crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep. My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing those books you help to support my work. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “About the Author” section with each article. In order to comply with those government regulations, I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share