Unfortunately Sometimes Bullying Is Effective

Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear the case dealing with the Pennsylvania election challenge. The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the decision and the possible reason for it. This is not good news for America.

The article reports:

In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant writ to hear the Pennsylvania election challenge cases [pdf here – begin page 25].  While the majority of media will likely celebrate this decision; and while the court has refused to hear the case(s) based on their position the issues are “moot”; there appears to be an underlying motive  not being discussed.

It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case and grant a writ of certiorari.  In October 2020 the issues with the Pennsylvania court overruling the Pennsylvania legislature was of such importance four justices agreed to block the lower court order. However, four months later the majority claim the arguments within the case are “moot”;  & the election is over.

In essence the Roberts Court is saying they will allow any/all methods and manipulations of election law within states, and only look to the state outcome.  This is very troublesome.

The article continues:

Why would Justice Kavanaugh reverse his position?  In October the state action to supersede the Pennsylvania legislature was a hazard.  In February it is moot.

While it is never a good idea to look into the background of the court for motives, one cannot easily dismiss that Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett may have voted against the writ because they were concerned such a decision would cause the senate to start a process of “packing the court.”   Retaining the current number of justices within the court is more likely if the justices avoid triggering the consequences from the previous threat.

Justices’ Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch remained consistent with their earlier decisions to hear the cases and settle the disputes.  Barrett never weighed in on the October injunction, but Kavanaugh has completely reversed his position with his denial of the writ.

The article includes Justice Thomas’ statement:

Isn’t it interesting that when laws were broken and voting was questionable, no court in America has actually been willing to examine the evidence. Unfortunately, I suspect that this is only one of many bad decisions to come.

Chris Wallace Must Be Getting Heat For His Debate Performance

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about an interview on ” Fox News Sunday.” Chris Wallace, who hosts the show, was conducting an interview of Democratic Delaware Sen. Chris Coons.

The article reports:

Wallace specifically asked Coons to weigh in on the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court, and the Delaware Senator pivoted to argue that the Trump administration’s focus on filling judicial vacancies amounted to court packing.

For once, Chris Wallace got it right. The article notes:

“Let me just say — I’m just going to say, that’s a different issue than packing the court,” Wallace concluded. “If that’s the question, whether or not the court should — the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett, that’s different than changing the number of justices on the court. Senator Coons, I got to leave it there, thank you.”

For the record, packing the court means adding more justices to the Supreme Court in order to impact the balance of liberal and conservative judges. Filling judicial vacancies is one of the responsibilities of the President. Because of the increasing rancor in the Senate, a large number of the nominees of President Obama were not confirmed, and there were a lot of judicial vacancies when President Trump took office. He promptly began to fill these vacancies. Getting judicial nominees passed is much easier when the President and the Senate are held by the same party. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be the case (they disliked the idea of political parties), but that is where we are today.

I give credit to Chris Wallace for at least correcting Senator Coons on his talking point.