The U.S. Supreme Court loses its bearings
By David Morgan- Many decades ago, when I was attending a prestigious northern business school, we were honored to have Kemmons Wilson, founder of the Holiday Inns in Memphis, TN come talk to us.
The idea of Holiday Inns was initiated by him, he said, on a family vacation while driving with all five children to Washington, DC.
Outraged at being charged extra for each child at every roadside lodging where the family stayed, not to mention the cramped, uncomfortable accommodations, Kemmons decided to reinvent the lodging industry. His idea was to build 400 motels across the country, each within a day’s drive of the next. Kemmons measured every nook and cranny of every room where the family stayed. He took a simple idea, kept it simple, and made it work.
After his talk, one lad in our class asked him rather strange question: “Mr. Wilson, I understand that you never graduated from college or graduate school, and you now have to deal with a lot of people with a lot of education. Does that ever bother you?”
Well, Mr. Wilson thought for about 15 seconds and turned and looked the young man in the eye. “Well, son, I learned a long time ago that if you don’t have any education, you got to use your brains.” The room broke out in laughter, and I never forgot that remark.
It appears now that the U. S. Supreme Court would do well to pay attention to his words. The problem with most of them is that when you have too much education, you forget to use your brains. Indeed, I would say that many judges are educated beyond their intelligence.
Take the case that they just rejected of Texas versus the four key battleground states in the recent Trump vs Biden election.
The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court on the premise that the high court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
Not to minimize the significance of this case, 17 other states joined in expressing support for the Texas lawsuit, and include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) and this Court’s Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.”
As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States.
Texas alleged Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania “exploited” the coronavirus pandemic to “justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.”
The Court rejected the complaint, saying that “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,” the court’s order stated.
Article III of the Constitution is reasonably clear when it says in Section 1, ‘The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court,’ and in Section 2, ‘The judicial power shall extend to all cases, …- to Controversies between two or more states;- between a state and citizens of another state…’
Certainly, this controversy falls within these parameters. Justice Alito cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. California, which said “we likely do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our original jurisdiction that arise between two or more States” (Alito and Justice Thomas were two who felt the case should be looked at).
None of those justices gave a view on the facts of the case, among many of which is that there were 174,384 ballots in Michigan not tied to a registration number. That is in the case. So, they did not get to the merits of the case.
Anyone who was paying attention and not fawning over the serious misinterpretation of the snooze media would know that there were many, many instances of serious theft of ballots and augmentation of fake ballots in the states in question. There were hundreds of witnesses and thousands of affidavits from witnesses. The last time I asked about it, if just three or four people witnessed and swore that a person had shot another person, that was considered adequate proof of the crime.
There is a serious question about the outcome of the electors in each of the states in question due to the incredible theft of votes. The dishonesty of the outcome in these states has a direct impact on the voters’ wishes in the state of Texas and all the other states. A level and honest playing field across the nation is the very least the Supreme Court should be vitally concerned about. But they are not. Or else why are they there?
It is disgraceful that these judges should be discussing ‘standing’ or ‘lack of standing’ over an issue that so clearly shows that the entire nation has ‘standing’ in this matter.
This is the time to look at the Law, not at the Rule of Law.
Why is the law there if not to protect the nation from the theft of its most precious rights?
Why does the Court exist if it cannot do at least that much?
“Even before the United States was a nation, there was talk among colonists that laws should govern a new nation, not individuals, including kings or queens, as they’d seen in Britain and other countries,” Marquette University Law Professor David Papke wrote for the American Bar Association in an Aug. 22, 2019 article.
In the article, “Rule of Law in American Life: A Long and Intentional Tradition.” he continued:
“One colonist, Thomas Paine, produced a booklet in 1776 called Common Sense, and it became a bestseller by today’s standards. In it, he detailed how, “in America, law is king.”
Hundreds of eyewitnesses provide all the proof that is necessary for a close hearing.
Hundreds of election laws were broken in plain sight for those who bothered to look.
It’s time the Judges used their brains. It’s time to admit that the Law is what is important – not the Rule of Law.