“Trump v. Biden” - SCOTUS, it ain't over till it's over

SCOTUS: whatever you do will undoubtedly be condemned by Social Democrats, Fake News and Big Tech. What SHALL you do? Op-ed.

Dr. R. Sklaroff & L K. Lechter ,

US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court
iStock

Imagine you’re one of the five conservative Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) justices and don’t like both what’s emerging from Biden and the loss of potency that would emerge from a liberally-packed set of newly-confirmed colleagues.

And imagine further that you have the opportunity to vet overwhelming evidence of election fraud that could both stop Biden and preserve your majority status, but don’t want to function in this “plenary” fashion repeatedly.

Furthermore, imagine you see no resolute effort by Republican state legislators to act affirmatively after having aired these non-speculative complaints and smoking-gun observations and, thus, that you stand between preserving Capitalism and acquiescing to Socialism.

Because you are among the SCOTUS Justices who follow election returns just as did predecessors two decades ago when adjudicating Bush v. Gore, you find yourself empowered to help the incumbent oppose myriad progressives—Americans and foreigners—who want to restore empowerment to the Deep State, Red China, and Neo-Nazi Iran.

Because you now have the opportunity to adjudicate three ripe cases emerging from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you envision a pathway to reverse both the legal landscape and the PR narrative that has rapidly switched to vapid praise for Biden’s having revealed hairline ankle fractures while romping with his dog.

Because you recognize time-is-tight, you know you must demand break-neck briefing and the ability to issue a landmark decision that could quickly snowball among five other battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin) as their cases begin to arrive.

Whatever you do must be mutually exclusive of inert, politically unnerved Republican state legislators who wouldn’t consider appointing Trump electors—or sending none, due to electoral uncertainty—absent a SCOTUS prod.

Whatever you do will undoubtedly be condemned by Social Democrats, Fake News and Big Tech.

Whatever you do will have to be grounded in the liquidation process inherent in Originalism, regardless of whether Gorsuch’s original text or Kavanaugh’s original meaning is the driving force.

You know your colleagues honored religious rights over gubernatorial edicts (consistent with the RLUIPA), despite concerns whether they have been reliable conservatives.

Also, you know that Trump’s Tweets have been resolutely based on the dictum of the late Andrew Breitbart that “Politics is downstream from Culture,” recognizing that current societal trends have degraded Judeo-Christian and patriotic institutions as they undermine classics of Western Civilization.

Finally, you know that validating Trump’s electoral challenge would provoke progressives to erupt by reinitiating “mostly peaceful protests” by Antifa, BLM and the radical left.

What SHALL you do?

Starting immediately after the election, we predicted that Trump’s campaign would follow our Study Guide and how we had Handicapped it, triggering him to orient litigation toward the SCOTUS (in essays published in Israel); we feel merely accepting cases that have arisen in Pennsylvania would be seismic.

These four essays elaborate extensively upon Trump’s two-pronged Federalism-based strategy: the necessity for state legislatures to control procedure and the need to ensure administrative adherence to what state legislatures enact.

These op-eds document how classical liberals are revulsed by how Biden’s Great Reset would radically change America, evidenced by how his adherents have been impatient to unleash a lawless national cancel culture.

These articles are replete with hyperlinks that address myriad concepts that others have ignored, if for no other reason than to confirm how Rudy Giuliani’s claims of widespread fraudamplified by Sidney Powell—will resonate among SCOTUS Justices who have the cujones to reverse all that conservatives find reprehensible among what modern-day Jacobins are doing to America.

We aren’t in the business of prognostication but, as of the date this has been composed (December 6th), we expect Trump’s lawyers may achieve a semblance of fruition before the safe-harbor date (December 8th) but, assuredly, prior to when the Electoral College meets (December 14th) and transmits ballots to the Senate (December 23rd).

That’s why Trump wants the SCOTUS to remand the case for prompt investigation as to whether to disallow counting ballots that did not comply with such bedrock legal requirements as [1]—timely arrival; [2]—tabulation under the aegis of bipartisan observers following documented adherence to chain-of-custody mandates; and [3]—preservation of the civil rights of candidate-Trump.

And if, as in the Florida case, there’s now insufficient time for this to be accomplished, then the Electors of tainted states would have to be supplanted or discarded, after election decertification.

Trump then emerges victorious, either instantly or after the one-state-one-vote tally in the House.

As native Pennsylvanians, we would be proud that our Commonwealth would be the linchpin that preserved America…and the world.

Lynne K. Lechter is a business/corporate attorney and litigator. Robert B. Sklaroff is a hematologist/oncologist.

אזור קבצים מצורפים

Does Originalism mean there’s one right answer?

Victor Davis Hanson in NAS Conference Keynote: "Western Culture is Unique"

he Ancient Greeks and Western Civilization: Then and Now, pt 1



top