Forcing/Encouraging The US Supreme Court To Do Its Duty

.

Unfortunately, our website was sabotaged on 2/18/2022.

And just as unfortunately, its contents had not been saved since 1/20/2022.

The contents of this section and the "Participant Comments" section for this meeting have been restored.

However, the number of views for EVERYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE between 1/20/2022 and 2/18/2022 can NOT be restored because that info is unknown.

This problem is most pronounced for the material relating to the Feb 16 meeting.
Post Reply
HLS Classmate
Site Admin
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2021 10:10 pm

Forcing/Encouraging The US Supreme Court To Do Its Duty

Post by HLS Classmate »

.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Forcing/Encouraging The US Supreme Court To Do Its Duty
From: HLS Classmate
Date: Thu, February 10, 2022 3:12 pm EST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

I was intrigued by the last paragraph of your discussion outline –

“Amending 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1251 et seq., to provide that the U.S. Supreme Court must give precedence during Nov-Dec-Jan following each Presidential election to honor its Constitutional (and exclusive) Duty to hear lawsuits between states – at least those alleging stolen elections. AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN NOT SHIRK ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY ON THE GROUNDS OF A ‘LACK OF STANDING’ RE ALLEGEDLY-STOLEN ELECTIONS.”

I agree that the Supreme Court is very politically oriented and that it regularly hides from important issues.

Were there other important considerations behind your proposed amendment to 28 USC Sec. 1251 et seq?

Regards,

HLS Classmate



---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Forcing/Encouraging The US Supreme Court To Do Its Duty
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, February 11, 2022 5:52 am MST
To: HLS Classmate
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear HLS Classmate,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Since you have also taught law school, I trust you could appreciate the Suggested Discussion Outline’s “Law School 101 Hypothetical.”

After all, the U.S. Supreme Court’s “How To Steal An Election” Manual invites activists of all stripes to steal elections.

And current conditions in the U.S. are not that much different from Germany 1932-33 --

(1) The last German Presidential Election prior to World War II was held 3/13/1932 followed by a run-off on 4/10/1932.

(2) Paul von Hindenburg, Chief of the German General Staff (8/29/1916 – 7/3/1919) and President of Germany since 5/12/1925, was running for re-election.

(3) Paul von Hindenburg won the first round on 3/13/1932 with 49.6% of the vote, but a run-off was required because he had not received 50%.

(4) In the run-off on 4/10/1932, Paul von Hindenburg received 53.0%, Hitler 36.8% and the Communist Party Leader Ernst Thälmann 10.2%.

(5) On 1/30/1933, von Hindenburg appointed Hitler “Chancellor of Germany” while, himself, remaining as President.

(6) On 2/27/1933, Hitler burned down the Reichstag (the German Parliament Building), blaming the deed on the Communists.

(7) When Paul von Hindenburg died in office 8/2/1934, Hitler became President of Germany – giving himself the new title of “Führer und Reichskanzler” (Leader and Imperial Chancellor).

(8) Hitler was now dictator even though he had never won an election.

********************
Sorry for the history lesson.

The answer to your question???

*****
FIRST, in my judgment the United States could easily lose its democracy and become a dictatorship courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “How To Steal An Election” Manual.

If you think the military would stand in the way, it is respectfully suggested that the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to do its duty and ascertain in Texas vs. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin whether the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen – means nobody (much less the military) will ever know whether it was!!! So how could anyone expect the military to step in and install either of the two protagonists???

And if you think the media would stand in the way, their incessant lies about no evidence of election fraud has already been described in the Suggested Discussion Outline --

“Of the 60 or so state-court cases brought by a variety of plaintiffs, all (or virtually all) were decided on procedural grounds such as being brought too early (“not ripe” in legalese), being brought too late (“laches” in legalese), being moot (the alleged improprieties in the particular lawsuit not being sufficient to overturn the entire national election), or lack of standing (no right for the particular plaintiff to complain). Accordingly, such cases simply did not consider the evidence of election fraud.”

Moreover, Stalin’s famous remark about the Pope (How many [military] divisions does the Pope have?) could easily be applied to the media before they are muzzled or shut down.


*****
SECOND, there is no institution in the United States that would have the expertise and prestige to make an authoritative determination whether a Presidential Election had been stolen and what to do about it.

In this regard, the partisan press likes to complain about the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2000 Presidential Election. So please forgive another history lesson from our 1/12/2011 meeting which focused on currently-retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s “Making Democracy Work” (Knopf 2010).

Q&A-18 of the Short Quiz for our 1/12/2011 meeting (available at viewtopic.php?f=186&t=685&p=867&hilit=c ... 2a94a#p867) addressed Bush vs. Gore --

Question 18

The NY Times Book Review [of Breyer’s “Making Democracy Work”] states: “As Breyer himself notes, ‘the public has developed a habit’ of accepting the court’s rulings, even egregious ones like Bush v. Gore.” Is the characterization of Bush v. Gore as “egregious” Breyer’s or the reviewer’s? Wasn’t Breyer in the 9-0 majority in Bush v. Gore I? How did Breyer vote in Bush v. Gore II and Bush v. Gore III? What were the conclusions of the studies of the Florida ballots conducted much later by a “Big Four” CPA Firm for a consortium of newspapers headed by the NY Times and by another “Big Four” CPA Firm for a consortium of newspapers headed by the Miami Herald?

Answer 18

The commentary regarding “egregious” is the reviewer’s.

Breyer, of course, was in the 9-0 majority in Bush v. Gore I which ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had to state its reasoning in approving the Gore vote-recount procedures because they involved a U.S. Presidential election and, therefore, were governed by the “Equal Protection of the Law” Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Bush v. Gore II which followed the Florida Supreme Court’s dutifully explaining its reasoning, Breyer was among the 7-2 majority that ruled that “cherry picking” only counties where re-counts were controlled by Democrats and employing different tests (hanging chad, dimpled chad, etc.) violated the Equal Protection of the Law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 7-2 majority ruled that to satisfy “Equal Protection of the Law” 100% of the ballots would have to be recounted and THE SAME TEST RE CHADS had to be used for all ballots, while leaving to Florida the selection of which chad test to use.

Bush v. Gore III followed Gore’s returning to the Supreme Court to argue that since he had wasted so much time with unconstitutional recounts, there was no longer sufficient time to conduct a recount that satisfied the US Constitution and, therefore, the Supreme Court should nullify the Federal Election Law which provided, in effect, that if the Florida Secretary of State was not in position to certify the election results by the FEL’s deadline, then the Florida electoral votes would be cast by the Florida Congressional delegation which had a Republican majority. Breyer was in the 5-4 minority that thought the Court should overrule Congress and postpone the meeting/vote of the Electoral College in order to give Gore more time.

Long after the dust settled, 100% of the ballots were examined by one of the Big Four CPA firms hired by a consortium of newspapers headed by the NY Times, and 100% of the ballots were also examined by another of the Big Four CPA firms hired by a consortium of newspapers headed by the Miami Herald. Both Big Four CPA firms reported that there was no chad test which, if applied to 100% of the ballots, would have reversed Bush’s victory.


*****
THIRD, is timing.

The Suggested Discussion Outline for Feb 16 states --

“The ‘Prayers for Relief’ sought by the State of Texas included U.S. Supreme Court declarations that the Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin 2020 presidential elections violated the Constitution, that their unconstitutional elections cannot be used for appointing Electors, and that each of the four states would be authorized to conduct remedial elections -- which could have been accomplished before the scheduled 1/20/2021 Inauguration Day.”

And that the current state of affairs is that with the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to accept its U.S. Constitutional Original Jurisdiction over lawsuits between/among states, THERE IS NO PLACE WHERE STATES CAN SUE EACH OTHER.

So if we are to preserve democracy in America, the question becomes whether to amend 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1251 et seq. in the manner suggested in my Suggested Discussion Outline, viz. “to provide that the U.S. Supreme Court must give precedence during Nov-Dec-Jan following each Presidential election to honor its Constitutional (and exclusive) Duty to hear lawsuits between states – at least those alleging stolen elections. AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN NOT SHIRK ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY ON THE GROUNDS OF A ‘LACK OF STANDING’ RE ALLEGEDLY-STOLEN ELECTIONS.”

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, to provide that such lawsuits shall originate in lower courts – which BTW may require a Constitutional Amendment re the U.S. Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction.

I trust you will agree that if such lawsuits are required to originate in lower courts, there will NOT be sufficient time for a trial followed by an inevitable appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court!!!

And a trial court determination followed by a refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to accept an appeal has no hope of being accepted by American public opinion!!!


*****
FOURTH, is the question of what else the U.S. Supreme Court would do with its time if it were NOT forced to honor its U.S. Constitutional Original Jurisdiction.

While it is in session each year Oct-June, the U.S. Supreme Court hears approximately 100-150 cases.

If, every four years, the U.S. Supreme Court were required to give priority Nov-Jan to lawsuits between/among states, then even if the entire attention of the U.S. Supreme Court had to be given to such lawsuits for 3 months out of its 9-month session, that would only mean neglect for 33-50 of the LEAST IMPORTANT cases that would otherwise have been heard.

I trust you will agree that very few of U.S. Supreme Court cases involve life/death for American democracy.

And CERTAINLY, that the 33-50 LEAST-IMPORTANT cases each year do NOT involve life/death for American democracy.


*****
Thank you again for your e-mail.

I know if you have any questions/comments, you are not shy.

Sincerely,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Discussion Outline – NYC Harvard Club Book Promotion – “Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote” – Feb 16”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest