The “stock in trade” of judges is trust. The only thing that gives a jurist’s opinion weight is public confidence that the guy in the black robe honestly and properly applied the law as prescribed by his oath. Unfortunately, courts at all levels seem to gleefully disregard the importance of that trust.
Local judges appear uninterested in public order. Their release of violent offenders with low or no bail to prey on the innocent has become an epidemic.
District judges are busily trying to nullify an election. They are ruling that Congress may neither legislate nor appropriate and that the president needs their permission to enforce duly enacted laws and conduct foreign affairs.
The Supreme Court sits atop that chaos, more concerned with conflict avoidance that defense of the Constitution. We are galled by the chief justice’s gaslighting that the Article III branch of government can be trusted. His claim that “there are no Obama judges, Biden judges, nor Trump judges” was a lie that he insisted we accept despite what we were clearly observing.
For elections to work, mere accuracy is insufficient. They must be transparent and beyond reproach, not riddled with question marks. There will always be millions of Americans dissatisfied with the outcome of any one election, but we expect them to abide by the outcome, because it represents the will of the majority. A peaceful transfer of power depends on the minority believing that an election does in fact represent the will of the majority.
Unfortunately, the conduct of the 2020 election created suspicion rather than confidence.
What happened in the 2020 election may turn out to be the biggest electoral scandal in U.S. history. If so, it was made worse by the inaction of the branch of government whose duty it was to ensure fairness: our courts.
After Joe Biden was declared the winner, we were told to believe that the man who couldn’t greet a foreign leader without a teleprompter, and who had a creepy habit of sexualizing young girls, got more votes than Barack Obama. Our suspicions rose.
We needed the courts to adjudicate our election grievances. Donald Trump, along with several states, gave them the opportunity to do so. Lawsuits were filed challenging the election results.
But rather than ensuring that the election represented the will of the people by hearing the evidence and taking appropriate action, the courts refused to hear the cases, claiming that the plaintiffs lacked “standing.” Let that sink in: The Supreme Court held that candidates, states, and citizens had no stake in the outcome of an election! Contrary to the assertions of the Democrats, the courts didn’t find the challenges unfounded, because they never heard the arguments or reviewed the evidence. When the Article III branch of government had the chance to defend the Constitution and our rights, the judges instead became risk-averse monkeys. They chose to see nothing, hear nothing, and say nothing. Suspicions left unaddressed festered.
We were asked to assume that our new president was legitimate — not because he was elected, but because he was inaugurated. That is not how a self-governed republic is supposed to work.
What started as a questionable election became a disastrous administration. In a mere four years, President “Asterisk”
Perhaps most disturbing of all, the Biden administration didn’t address the questions of election fraud, but instead demonized those who voiced the questions. The Garland Justice Department even sought to imprison citizens for questioning the election. Do those seem like the actions of people who were confident of their victory?
The Biden administration’s resistance to transparency, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to get involved, only increased our distrust of elections, and those whose duty it is to protect our rights.
When the Supreme Court took a “mental health day” in lieu of doing its duty five years ago, I predicted that “if and when” the truth was discovered, it would expose the Court as derelict and severely damage its standing with those it serves.
Well, Donald Trump beat the margin of fraud in 2024, and now it seems that “if and when” has arrived.
At Davos, President Trump made an offhand remark that arrests are coming. Are we about to learn that the most disastrous administration in U.S. history was launched by the biggest electoral fraud in history? Will it turn out to be a fraud too big to hide forever?
Will Georgia become a roadmap to national election fraud, in the same way that Minnesota has become a roadmap to national financial fraud?
In an election decided by less than 50,000 votes, will we learn that millions of ballots were invalid?
The next time Chief Justice Roberts asks for our trust, will we give it?
To be clear, we will never know if Donald Trump won the 2020 election. But we may learn something far more troubling: that we can’t know who won.
The implication of that uncertainty is shocking. The most powerful country in the world may have taken a time-out from self-governance for a full presidential term. It was not a representative republic, but instead a monster created by bureaucrats and enabled by judges to unleash global havoc.
Congratulations, Chief Justice Roberts. You kept your hands clean. But at what cost?
