Category Archives: Supreme Court

SCOTUS clerk overheard real reason why justices refused to hear Texas election lawsuit

A week ago, on December 11, 2020, in a 7:2 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging the election results in the four battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Trump had won those states in 2016 and was winning on election night 2020 until the counting of votes was abruptly halted. When the counting resumed the next morning, lo and behold, Biden surged ahead.

Texas’ lawsuit was joined by 106 GOP members of Congress and supported by 17 GOP-controlled states — Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

State of Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al., argued that officials in the four battleground states conducted the 2020 general election in violation of the U.S. Constitution because they had illegally altered election laws, causing a flood of mail-in votes without appropriate ballot integrity measures in place. Texas maintained the resulting irregularities put the ultimate outcome of the presidential election in doubt.

But the Supreme Court, in an unsigned one-page order, dismissed the suit on the grounds that Texas lacked legal standing or right to sue under the Constitution because the state had not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections. All three justices whom Trump had nominated — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett — sided with the majority. The two lone dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who disagreed with the ruling on standing, arguing that the Supreme Court should hear the case, but did not otherwise find for the plaintiffs.

Now we know why SCOTUS squashed the Texas lawsuit.

Chief Justice John Roberts, whom conservatives already regard as suspect for his vote that ensured the Supreme Court’s rulings for “gay” marriage and Obamacare (see here), quashed the Texas lawsuit in fear of riots. In other words, Roberts and the other 6 justices were so intimidated by the terrorist tactics of the Black Lives Matter riots, they relinquished their sworn duty to the American people to uphold justice and the U.S. Constitution.

First reported on December 12 by the Hal Turner Radio Show “from a source deep inside the US Supreme Court,” this is now verified by a C-SPAN video tweeted by Howard Mortman, who identifies himself as “C-SPAN Communications Director“.

I first saw the video yesterday on a tweet by Kyle Becker. But this morning, I discovered that Twitter had already taken down Kyle’s tweet (see here). So I’ve saved Mortman’s video and uploaded it to FOTM‘s media library.

The video is a C-SPAN clip of an unidentified grey-haired man testifying before the Electoral College on December 14. Epoch Times has identified the grey-haired man as a GOP Texas elector, Matt Patrick.

Here’s the video (transcript to follow):

This is what Matt Patrick said:

“It was written by someone who is a current staffer for one of the Supreme Court justices. I’ll just describe the report to you that I read, and you can make of it what you will.

He said that the justices, as they always do, went into a closed room to discuss cases they’re taking, their debate. There’s no phones, no computers, no nothing, no one else is in the room except for the nine justices. It’s typically very civil, you don’t usually hear any sound, they just debate what they’re doing. But when the Texas case was brought up, he [the staffer] said he heard screaming through the walls. As Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up, and the reason — the words that were heard through the wall when Justices Thomas and Alito were citing Bush v. Gore — from John Roberts were ‘I don’t give a f__ about that case, I don’t wanna hear about it. At that time, we didn’t have riots.’

So what he was saying was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing. And I’m sorry, but that is moral cowardice. And we in the SREC*, I’m a SREC member, we put those words in very specifically because the charge of the Supreme Court is to ultimately be our final arbitrator, our final line of defense for right and wrong, and they did not do their duty. So I think we should leave these words in because I want to send this oral message to them. Thank you.”

*Note: SREC is the State Republican Executive Committee, the 64-member governing board of the Republican Party of Texas.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court has denied what was claimed in the C-SPAN video.

The spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email yesterday that the court “has been conducting its conferences remotely by phone since March when the building closed due to the pandemic.”

According to the Supreme Court’s website, the justices have not met in person for months because of the COVID-19 China virus pandemic:

The Court will hear all oral arguments scheduled for the November and December sessions by telephone conference. In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely. The oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. On days when more than one case will be heard, there will be a three minute pause before the second case begins,” the court’s website says.

Jim Pickle, also a Republican elector in Texas, disagreed with Patrick on sending a message to SCOTUS on the grounds of hearsay. Pickle said:

“Sending a message like this to a body of legislators or judicial officers is not going to get the attention you want to get. Nobody knows what happened in that conference room on purpose. Hearing yelling, the triple hearsay, quadruple hearsay now, about what is going on in that room, you cannot make your decision on that basis.”

John Roberts in Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express flight logs

H/t FOTM reader Tim Shey.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Electoral College, incl. Hillary Clinton, meets today to officially elect POTUS, after courts deny Trump’s legal challenges

Today, the the 538-member Electoral College will meet to formally cast their ballots to make the fraudulent election of Joe Biden official.

Ever the hypocrite, one of the electors is Hillary Clinton, who will cast one of New York’s 29 electoral votes, although in 2016, she had said, “we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

When she was interviewed on SiriusXM’s “Signal Boost” on October 27, 2020, days before the November 3 presidential election, Clinton already declared she would vote against President Trump. She said, “I’m sure I’ll get to vote for Joe [Biden] and [Sen. Kamala Harris] in New York. So, that’s pretty exciting.”

Yesterday, in an interview on “Fox and Friends,” Trump said the election was “rigged” and “robbed from us.” He quixotically vowed to continue the fight, declaring the legal cchallenges are “not over” and that “We keep going and we’re going to continue to go forward.” (MSN)

Trump’s legal challenges contesting the election results in the swing states on issues surrounding the use of absentee and mail-in ballots have met with one setback after another.

Some 50 challenges filed in state and lower federal courts have been dismissed by judges who claimed they found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Two challenges were rejected by the Supreme Court. The latest one came late Friday when the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit filed on December 8 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging the election results in the four battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Trump had won those states in 2016 and was winning on election night 2020 until the counting of votes was abruptly halted. When the counting resumed the next morning, miraculously Biden surged ahead.

Texas’ lawsuit was joined by 106 GOP members of Congress and supported by 17 GOP-controlled states — Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

The Texas lawsuit argued that officials in the four battleground states conducted the 2020 general election in violation of the U.S. Constitution because they illegally altered election laws, causing a flood of mail-in votes without appropriate ballot integrity measures in place. Texas maintained the resulting irregularities put the ultimate outcome of the election in doubt.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who was asked by President Trump, would argue for Texas if the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. For that to happen, five justices would have to agree to hear the case.

But on December 11, in a 7:2 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit, on the grounds that Texas lacked legal standing or right to sue under the Constitution because the state has not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections. In an unsigned one-page order, the Supreme Court stated:

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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

All three justices whom Trump had nominated — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett — sided with the majority. The two lone dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who disagreed with the ruling on standing, arguing that the Supreme Court should hear the case, but did not otherwise find for the plaintiffs.

President Trump’s attorney and former NY governor Rudy Giuliani called the court’s decision a “terrible terrible mistake.” He said (Epoch Times):

“The case wasn’t rejected on the merits. The case was rejected on standing. Basically the courts are saying they want to stay out of this, they don’t want to give us a hearing, they don’t want the American people to hear the facts. These facts will remain an open sore in our history unless they get resolved. They need to be heard, they need to be aired and somebody needs to make a decision on whether they’re true or false. And some courts are going to have the courage to make that decision.”

Giuliani said President Trump will refile the Texas lawsuit as a separate lawsuit in district court where obviously the president would have standing.

Jenna Ellis, a Trump campaign senior legal adviser, said Trump’s legal team still has time up until Jan. 6 when Congress officially certifies the Electoral College votes.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Confirmed: It’s now “Justice Amy Coney Barrett”

One of the BEST things to come out of President Trump’s election: Three judges confirmed to the Supreme Court.

And this happened on Hillary Clinton’s birthday.

And Justice Thomas administered Justice Barrett’s oath.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Crazy Mazie asks Amy Coney Barrett if she’s ever sexually assaulted someone

Kavanaugh 2.0 route. Still won’t work.

Notice in the video above how many notes Crazy Mazie has to use. Want to see the notes that future Justice Barrett used?

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Will the media give Biden a pass? He refuses to answer the SCOTUS question

Of course the demorat-loving media will give him a pass.

Imagine if President Trump answered a question with that same type of answer.

FYI: Kamala Harris has already answered this question:

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Pelosi 2.0 – Biden says you’ll have to elect me to find out what my policy positions are

The utter arrogance of Democrats.

Do you remember in 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling the American people that we “must pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it?”.

Ten years later, it’s the Pelosi bamboozle all over again.

This time it’s the Democrats’ presidential nominee Joe Biden effectively telling the American people we would have to elect him to find out what all his policy positions are.

Recall that a week ago, during the first 2020 presidential campaign debate, moderator Chris Wallace pressed Biden on whether he would pack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices from the traditional 9 justices (since 1869), as a way to boost the number of “Progressives”.

Biden flatly refused to take a stance on the issue, saying: “Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue.”

When President Trump pressed him on it, Biden acknowledged that he had no intention of giving a straight answer. (Fox News)

Two days later, on October 1, 2020, during one of Biden’s press conferences, a reporter followed up on the question about packing the Supreme Court. She said: “Voters want to know what you would do as president.”

Biden answered: “That’s exactly what they want me to talk about so we don’t.”

In other words, Biden is saying the same thing Pelosi had said ten years ago:

“You American sheeple will have to vote for me in order to find out what I’ll do as President.”

But millions of Americans simply don’t care. They’ll vote for Biden no matter what he says or refuses to say.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Pro-abort female attorney becomes a Satanist because Ruth Bader Ginsburg died

5 days ago, I posted on the inhuman, demonic screams when President Trump paid respect to the corpse of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court.

Here’s more evidence that the battle we find ourselves in is not just a political or ideological battle, it is a spiritual and supernatural battle, against the dark forces of Hell itself.

A pro-abort female attorney, who calls herself Jamie Smith (likely a pseudonym), is so distraught by the death of Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who favored decriminalizing pedophilia and child sex trafficking — that she became a Satanist.

Below are excerpts from Smith’s essay, “The Death Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Pushed Me To Join The Satanic Temple,” Huffington Post, Sept. 24, 2020:

I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls. I often walk with my children to get ice cream and spend weekends hiking through a national park. I am not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times….

When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism. 

Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition. In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God, Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists. They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion.

Just like other faiths, the Satanic Temple has a code that their members believe in deeply and use to guide their lives. These Seven Fundamental Tenets include that “one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason,” that “the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions,” and that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”

Reading through the Seven Tenets, I was struck by how closely they aligned with the unwritten code I had used to try to guide my own life for several years. I realized, happily, that these were my people and that I had been a Satanist for several years without even knowing it. When Justice Ginsburg’s death suddenly made combating the threats to reproductive rights and a government free from religious interference more urgent, I knew it was time to join them and support their conceptual and legal battles.

Even before Ginsburg’s death, the Supreme Court was unwilling to provide adequate protection for a woman’s right to choose and to control her body. The court was unwilling to keep church and state separate. Now, without her voice of reason on the court ― let alone her vote ― Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger of being overturned not based on legal arguments or scientific reasoning, but because of religious objections to what is a safe and necessary procedure for the women who seek it out after discussion with their physician. Ginsburg’s replacement is all but certain to be vehemently anti-choice, with one of the top contenders belonging to a sect that actually used the term “handmaid” to refer to some women until the popularity of the TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale” gave the term negative connotations….

The Satanic Temple hopes to appear before the Supreme Court in a case challenging a Missouri abortion law that requires those seeking to terminate their pregnancy to first receive materials asserting that their abortion would end the life of a separate, unique person….

This is an organization I want standing up for my rights and for my daughters’. While I support more mainstream groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Church and State, my research has shown that the Satanic Temple is truly in line with my beliefs about protecting our First Amendment rights and fighting laws that promote or are based on religious doctrine and that it is willing to use radical, creative and yet legally sound strategies to make its case….

We need to think outside the box to challenge what is coming and what is already here. The Satanic Temple is already doing that, and by becoming one of its members, I believe I have joined a community of people who will stop at nothing to safeguard my family’s rights ― and all of our rights ― when they are at their most vulnerable.

Jamie Smith is an attorney and mother who cares about civil rights. She can be reached at jamiesmithwrites@gmail.com.

If Smith thinks Satanic Temple is not about Satan, then she’s deeply deluded. But then, sins obscure not just our souls, but also our ability to see, recognize and discern evil.

And whatever the lies “Jamie Smith” tells herself, abortion is not a noble “civil right” but a grave sin — the intentional and deliberate killing of an innocent human life.

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Demons scream when President Trump paid respect to corpse of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The Supreme Court is supposed to be objective and nonpartisan.

But the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was anything but.

In July 2016, during the presidential campaign, Ginsburg was vocal in her hostility and horror at the thought of Trump being elected President. Saying she would move to New Zealand if Trump were elected, Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

When called on her critical remarks, Ginsburg doubled down and called Trump “a faker”.

Despite all that, President Trump was gracious and respectful when Ginsburg died last Friday, Sept. 18, 2020, from pancreatic cancer.

Trump issued a statement, saying he was “saddened” by the news, and hailed Ginsburg for her decisions on the legal equality of women and on the disabled. He called her a “brilliant mind” and a “titan of the law” who “demonstrated that one can disagree without being disagreeable toward one’s colleagues or different points of view,”

On September 24, 2020, the President and First Lady Melania paid their respects to Ginsburg’s corpse lying in repose in the Supreme Court.

News accounts said the First Couple were “booed” by an unfriendly crowd.

As usual, news accounts didn’t accurately report on what happened.

Instead of “boos,” Trump and Melania were greeted by inhuman screams, screeches and yowls — the sound of Hell.

Turn up the volume on the video below, and tell me if the sounds you hear from the “unfriendly crowd” are human.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Sunday funny!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Grab popcorn: President Trump to announce SCOTUS nominee on Saturday

President Trump said yesterday on Twitter that he will announce his SCOTUS nominee on Saturday.

Actor James Woods posted a great video of how the left will predictably react:

Popcorn time!

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0