If it is true, as many say, that the Supreme Court refused to hear cases against the validity of Joe Biden’s electoral “win” because they feared the packing of their court by angry vengeful Democrats, then they made a stupid decision. Obviously, they should have  done their utmost to keep the Democrats out and keep President Trump in. That would have been the certain way of protecting their numbers. It doesn’t make sense that they helped the party into power which would probably do what they fear – pack the court with judges likely to favor the Left.

THEY (not including the great and wise Justice Thomas) favored the Left. And now their court is very likely to be packed with Leftist judges.

Matt Margolis reports at PJ Media:

“Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Supreme Court of the United States, after showing that they didn’t have the courage to do what they should have done on the Great Presidential Election Fraud of 2020, was PACKED by the same people, the Radical Left Democrats (who they are so afraid of!), that they so pathetically defended in not hearing the Election Fraud case,” Trump asked.

“Now there is a very good chance they will be diluted (and moved throughout the court system so that they can see how the lower courts work), with many new Justices added to the Court, far more than has been reported,” Trump continued. “There is also a good chance that they will be term-limited.”

Trump then pointed out that there were 19 states with election challenges that were not heard by the Supreme Court. “Believe it or not, the President of the United States was not allowed to be heard based on ‘no standing,’ not based on the FACTS,” he said. “The Court wouldn’t rule on the merits of the great Election Fraud, including the fact that local politicians and judges, not State Legislatures, made major changes to the Election—which is in total violation of the United States Constitution.”

Just last month, a judge ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, broke state law when she unilaterally changed election rules by loosening the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots in the 2020 election. This ruling legitimizes a key claim made by the Trump legal team in its challenges to the 2020 election. Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray ruled that this change violated Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act.

“Our politically correct Supreme Court will get what they deserve,” said Trump. “An unconstitutionally elected group of Radical Left Democrats who are destroying our Country. If and when this happens, I hope the Justices remember the day they didn’t have courage to do what they should have done for America.”

So what the decisions amount to is an implicit statement to the Junta in power, “Don’t add more justices- no need – look, we are already left-biased”?

But if the court is already left-biased, why would they object to the addition of a few more Leftists?

No. None of it makes sense!

Clifford C. Nichols writes at American Thinker:

Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation’s demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture’s destruction has been rendered incurable.  Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action…but did not seem to.

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others.  Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.

Why would they not do this?

Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a New York prosecutor from obtaining former president Trump’s tax returns.  The practical effect was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President Trump’s ouster from office permanent.

Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone evidence the fact that the agenda of the justices has become politically driven.

It doesn’t end there.

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court — again without explanation — summarily refused to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Judicial Watch’s request that it be allowed to take the deposition of a member of this country’s ruling political elite — Hillary Rodham Clinton.  At the end of the day, Judicial Watch was only asking the Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law by finding that all Americans — including elites like Hillary Clinton — are to be treated equally under the law.  Instead, the Supreme Court unfortunately — and inexplicably — declined the opportunity to do even this.

Then this week, SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin containing the GOP’s 2020 election disputes with its denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bognet v. Dagraffenreid.  Again, it refused to rule on whether a state’s courts are qualified or not under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution to modify that state’s presidential election laws.  In short, whether Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the state Legislature’s authority to extend the time allowed for counting mail-in ballots is apparently not an issue worthy of this SCOTUS’s time.

From such glaring displays of indefensible Supreme Court inaction, the following incontrovertible truths have been set out in plain view before the nation’s very eyes:

1. The Supreme Court today is thoroughly politicized…and thus corrupt.

2. In America, the rule of law is now dead.

3. Worse yet, by these decisions, America’s Supreme Court has put on open display its utter disregard — and absolute contempt — for whatever the American people may think about the future unavailability of equal justice in a nation that once promised that such justice would be available to all. …

An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by the rule of law can be headed in only one direction: toward some form of centralized dictatorship limited only by the whims of those in power — i.e., a tyranny.

But will the half of America that does not want a Leftist tyranny now simply accept it?

Has the Supreme Court intentionally  – or unintentionally which would mean, in this case, stupidly – helped create a state of passionate division that nothing short of civil war can settle?

Has it sentenced America to civil war?

The Supreme Court had a moment in which it could have saved the Republic from tyranny. An opportunity for glory. But it shirked it. Shrank from it. Failed the nation, failed the Founders, lost its way. 

America no longer has a government of the people for the people.

The chambers of Congress are occupied by rulers for the rulers.

They do not parley. They speechify. They grandstand. It is not a real parliament.

So says Mark Steyn with scorn. He writes that he finds himself “at odds with virtually the entire politico-media class” in his reaction to “the ‘storming’ of the US Capitol” on January 6, 2021.

He thinks the members of Congress got a taste of what they deserve: a scary expression of the anger citizens feel towards them. And we agree with him.

The political class (represented by a Speaker who flies home to San Francisco on her own government plane) has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have loosed upon the land. For a few hours [on January 6] they weren’t.

In a self-governing republic of citizen-legislators, that ought to be sobering and instructive. But, of course, it wasn’t. Still, I was surprised that even politicians and pundits could utter all that eyewash about “the citadel of democracy” and “a light to the world” with a straight face. It’s a citadel of crap, and the lights went out long ago …

I despise the United States Congress, and not merely for the weeks I had to spend there during the Clinton impeachment trial. My contempt pre-dates that circus. It dates to the moment I first realized, as a recent arrival to this land, that when [a member] is giving some overwrought speech on a burning issue he is speaking to an entirely empty chamber – because there are no debates, because most of these over-entouraged Emirs of Incumbistan are entirely incapable of debate …

The American media go along with the racket, and there’s only the one pool camera with the fixed tight shot so that you can’t see the joint is deserted and the guy is talking to himself. …

I have never seen such rubbish in the House of Commons at Ottawa or Westminster or their equivalents around the Commonwealth – and it’s a charade in which the media are all-in.

So it’s a Potemkin parliament.

That leads easily to the next stage of decay – for why would a Potemkin parliament not degenerate further into a pseudo-legislature? The Covid “relief” bill is 5,593 pages. There is no such thing as a 5,593-page “law” – because no legislator could read it and grasp it. For purposes of comparison, the Government of India Act, which in 1935 was the longest piece of legislation ever drafted in British law and which provided for the government of what are now India, Pakistan and Burma, is 326 pages.

Oh, I’m sure paragons of republican virtue will object that no Indian or Burmese citizen-representatives were involved in that piece of imperial imposition. Well, no American citizen-representatives were involved in the Covid “relief” bill. The legislation was drafted not by legislators, nor by civil servants, nor even by staffers or interns. Instead, a zillion lobbyists wrote their particular carve-outs, and then it got stitched together by some clerk playing the role of Baron von Frankenstein. The “legislators” voted it into law unread, and indeed even unseen, as the Congressional photocopier proved unable to print it: It was a bill without corporeal form, but the yes-men yessed it into law anyway.

Whatever that is, it’s not a republic. …

This institution, this branch of the government of the vast and mighty United States of America, is no “beacon to the world”.

I wish no ill to anyone in the building, but I do support, during the next recess, its complete dismantling and the salting of the earth: it is not a “citadel of democracy”, only a sick perversion thereof. Whatever Sudan and Chad and Waziristan need, it’s not the US Congress.

Whatever the American people need, it’s not this pseudo-legislature; it’s not a corrupt and senile president such as they’re about to get; it’s not a Supreme Court that refuses to judge a case of flagrant fraud and outright defiance of the Constitution in a presidential election.

Has the great experiment in founding a nation on a Constitution designed to give all power to the people failed beyond repair?

The Supreme Court’s decision that upholds the Affordable Care Act undermines the Supreme Court itself.

George Will explains why this is the case. He writes at the Washington Post:

Conservatives are dismayed about the Supreme Court’s complicity in rewriting the Affordable Care Act — its ratification of the IRS’s disregard of the statute’s plain and purposeful language. …

The court says the ACA’s stipulation that subsidies are to be administered by the IRS using exchanges “established by the State” should not be construed to mean what it says. Otherwise the law will not reach as far as it will if federal exchanges can administer subsidies in states that choose not to establish exchanges. The ACA’s legislative history, however, demonstrates that the subsidies were deliberately restricted to distribution through states’ exchanges in order to pressure the states into establishing their own exchanges.

The most durable damage from Thursday’s decision is not the perpetuation of the ACA, which can be undone by what created it — legislative action. The paramount injury is the court’s embrace of a duty to ratify and even facilitate lawless discretion exercised by administrative agencies and the executive branch generally.

The decision … resulted from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s embrace of the doctrine that courts, owing vast deference to the purposes of the political branches, are obligated to do whatever is required to make a law efficient, regardless of how the law is written. What Roberts does by way of, to be polite, creative construing (Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting, calls it “somersaults of statutory interpretation”) is legislating, not judging.

Roberts writes, almost laconically, that the ACA “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting”.  That is his artful way of treating “inartful” as a synonym for “inconvenient” or even “self-defeating”. … [His decision will] empower all of the executive branch to ignore or rewrite congressional language that is not at all ambiguous but is inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created. Exercising judicial discretion in the name of deference, Roberts enlarges executive discretion. He does so by validating what the IRS did when it ignored the ACA’s text in order to disburse billions of dollars of subsidies through federal exchanges not established by the states. …

Since the New Deal, courts have permitted almost any legislative infringement of economic liberty that can be said to have a rational basis. Applying this extremely permissive test, courts usually approve any purpose that a legislature asserts. Courts even concoct purposes that legislatures neglect to articulate. This fulfills the Roberts Doctrine that it is a judicial function to construe laws in ways that make them perform better, meaning more efficiently, than they would as written by Congress.

Thursday’s decision demonstrates how easily, indeed inevitably, judicial deference becomes judicial dereliction, with anticonstitutional consequences. We are, says William R. Maurer of the Institute for Justice, becoming “a country in which all the branches of government work in tandem to achieve policy outcomes, instead of checking one another to protect individual rights. Besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution“.

The Roberts Doctrine facilitates what has been for a century progressivism’s central objective, the overthrow of the Constitution’s architecture. The separation of powers impedes progressivism by preventing government from wielding uninhibited power. Such power would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.

Roberts says “we must respect the role of the Legislature” but “a fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan”. However, he goes beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions.

By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.