RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-texass-election-lawsuit-failed-the-constitution/

Late Friday, the Supreme Court rejected Texas’s election-related lawsuit against fellow states Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The Supreme Court was right—and wrong.

A week ago today, Texas filed a Motion for Leave to file a Bill of Complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court against the four states, charging constitutional violations related to the 2020 election. Texas also sought preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the putative defendant states from taking further actions related to the election.

Two days later, the attorneys general for the named states filed their responses, all asserting Texas lacked “standing” or the right to sue, because Texas, as a state, suffered no injury from the claimed violations of the election code. Texas countered with a reply brief early Friday.

A bevy of additional filings also hit the Supreme Court’s docket, with states, legislators, governors, even random Americans seeking to file amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs either supporting or condemning Texas’ lawsuit. President Trump and a few states also sought to intervene or join in the case.

But Friday evening the Supreme Court closed the case by denying Texas’s request to file its complaint against the four swing states. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the unsigned short order, agreed to by seven justices, read. Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint “for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.”

Must the Supreme Court Address State Complaints?

Justice Samuel Alito issued a separate statement, joined by Justice Thomas, explaining that in their view the Supreme Court lacks the “discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” and thus Alito and Thomas would have granted Texas’s “motion to file the bill of complaint.” Significantly, the two-justice statement continued: “but [we] would not grant other relief, and [we] express no view on any other issue.”

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/14/after-examining-antrim-county-voting-machines-asog-concludes-dominion-intentionally-designed-to-create-systemic-fraud/

The cyber-security firm that conducted a forensic examination of 22 Dominion Voting tabulators in Michigan has determined that “Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed” to “create systemic fraud,” and that election results of Antrim County should not have been certified. Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG) said in a report published Monday morning that it observed an error rate of 68.05 percent in the fatally flawed machines.

Earlier Monday morning, Michigan state judge Kevin Elensheimer ordered the release of the the Dominion voting machines audit in Antrim County, where thousands of votes for President Trump were flipped to Joe Biden.

Last week, Judge Elensheimer issued a protective order allowing Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to temporarily block the results of the audit.

During a hearing conducted by ZOOM and streamed live on YouTube, Elensheimer this morning  removed that order, clearing the way for the results to go public with some redactions.

Elensheimer issued an order on Dec. 6 granting a local man, William Baily, permission to have the county’s 22 Dominion tabulators examined. A team of seven forensic investigators from Allied Security Operations Group examined the voting machines for about eight hours on Dec. 6.  ASOG is a cyber security firm from Texas.

Baily’s attorney Matthew DePerno posted ASOG’s conclusions online.

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election
results.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/will-americas-politically-disenfranchised-unite/

By now most America First conservatives have recognized the common agenda of libertarians and progressives. These two groups have significant differences, of course. For example, progressives are pro-union while libertarians prefer employee choice. But on most of the biggest issues, their agendas now align.

The alliance is a mismatch, however, for two reasons. First, because progressives have far more money and institutional power, and second, because progressives are serious, whereas libertarians tend to favor symbolic gestures.

The result of this is a one-sided alliance where the only time libertarians see elements of their policy agenda move from theory to reality is when it also serves the interests of progressives. For example, libertarians:

Support “free movement of peoples” but can’t prevent expensive welfare programs that attract economic migrants.
Support “free trade” but are indifferent to the impact that cheap foreign labor and foreign subsidies have on eliminating manufacturing jobs for Americans.
Support the right to be a homeless drug addict, but can’t prevent government hand-outs that attract more homeless drug addicts, or taxpayer-subsidized developments to give them free housing.
Support “upzoning” residential neighborhoods but don’t prevent developer subsidies or greenbelts that strangle the growth of cities.
Oppose government-funded infrastructure, which stops new freeway construction or projects to increase the water supply, but can’t prevent subsidized rail transit projects or water rationing.
Support the right of big tech platforms to censor free speech, with no apparent recognition that these companies have built monopolies and are manipulating public opinion.

The common thread in all these examples is that libertarians are unable to recognize that when governments only adopt half of a principle they support, it only makes matters worse. The other half of the principle of open borders is no welfare state. The other half of the principle of free trade is fair trade. The other half of the principle of personal freedom is personal responsibility. The principle of reducing zoning restrictions inside cities also requires us to reduce them outside of cities. And so on. Libertarians support the progressives where their principles supposedly align, but progressives take part one and ignore part two.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/john-eastman-the-man-who-deserved-to-win/

After completing the article below on Friday, I heard the news that the Supreme Court denied Texas’s lawsuit against four states alleging a violation of Texas voters’ constitutional rights in the November election. Against the denial of standing, Justice Samuel Alio, together with Justice Clarence Thomas, argued the court had no discretion to refuse such an original jurisdiction case between two or more states, but did not comment on the case’s merits. 

Chapman University law professor John C. Eastman on Wednesday moved to intervene on behalf of President Trump in the Texas suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Immediately, Eastman was assailed as the man who raised the “racist birther” charge against Kamala Harris. 

Having known Eastman for decades, I can attest that he is among America’s great intellectual and moral anti-racist scholars and attorneys. I have raised different issues about Harris than Eastman, but his questions about her eligibility had nothing to do with racism but instead raised fundamental questions about Article II’s eligibility requirements. 

As an attorney and law professor, and in government service at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastman has presented principled conservative arguments which are based on the Declaration of Independence and its interpretation by Abraham Lincoln. 

In addition to his University of Chicago law degree, a clerkship with Clarence Thomas, and a doctorate in politics and government from Claremont Graduate University, he has had electoral forays, last contending in 2010 for the Republican nomination for attorney general in California. He came in second in that race, and Kamala Harris won her primary and narrowly became the attorney general in the November election.

As director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Claremont Institute, Eastman exhibited tireless energy speaking and writing, serving on boards of conservative groups and filing amicus briefs, often with former Reagan Administration Attorney General Edwin Meese.

An Eastman brief goes well beyond the ordinary competence of an amicus brief, and that is true of this brief filed on behalf of the president as well. His argument is short and, if followed, would be revolutionary, since his arguments question precedents. But this is an unprecedented situation. 

Eastman summarizes the controversies involved in the four states in question, which have received much publicity—statistical anomalies in voting patterns, irregularities or even illegalities in distributing mail-in ballot applications and in securing and counting ballots, and numerous other instances of fraud and violations of election law. 

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/13/courts-to-voters-democrat-election-fraud-is-too-big-to-fail/

The courts have spoken, one after another. Some 74 million Americans have been denied our day in court.  The Democrats’ crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail.

Our play-it-safe judges don’t want to venture into these enormous seas, full of sharks, without precedent. They want to say in the safe spaces of the familiar. Stealing an election for city council is familiar enough to be overturned by law. Stealing a presidential election by wholesale fraud is above the law.

One might think that somehow our laws are written too narrowly to catch the whale of Democrat fraud in the election, but for one thing: the declarations from the bench that it is unthinkable to “upend an election.” Our judges tell us that ruling fraudulent ballots invalid would “disenfranchise” millions of voters. These are political statements. They are pusillanimous statements. They are not legal statements.

Upending an election has no precedent, we are told. But stealing a presidential election on this scale has no precedent, either.  The courts are saying that if election crimes are so consequential, they require a politically consequential act to be redressed, then no redress is allowed. 

That doesn’t even make sense. 

We are told there is no redress because the problem is political.

Yes, stealing an election is political. It is also illegal. It is also unconstitutional. 

The judges’ angry rebukes of the Republican plaintiffs are bogus by the very terms they use. If our judges are not willing to “disenfranchise” fraudulent and illegal votes, then they are disenfranchising the entire country. 

We are not getting the candidate who won the election. But the Supreme Court tells us our state attorneys have no standing to protect our votes. 

The evidence will not be heard in court. We cannot see the evidence formally submitted, discovery allowed, or 500 sworn testimonies of wrongdoing examined. Because none of us have the legal right to protest this heinous crime. Because we should have gone to court before the crime was committed, not after. Now is too late.

This is a failure of our justice system on a massive scale.