Categories
Right Angle

Why the Supreme Court Rebuffed Texas Suit Fighting Biden-Trump Election Outcome

Bill Whittle says the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Texas election suit represents rank cowardice, including the stunning silence by three justices appointed to the court by President Donald Trump.

Why the Supreme Court Rebuffed Texas Suit Fighting Biden-Trump Election Outcome

The Supreme Court of the United States rebuffed a suit by Texas and other states to find unconstitutional the election rule-making process in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Bill Whittle says this represents rank cowardice on the part of the court, including the three justices appointed to it by President Donald Trump.

Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott create 20 new episodes of Right Angle each month thanks to the Members who fund this enterprise, and run their own content creation machine at our site. 

Join us now when you become a Member, or support the work with a one-time donation. 

Listen to the Audio Version

Bill Whittle Network · Why the Supreme Court Rebuffed Texas Suit Fighting Biden-Trump Election Outcome

66 replies on “Why the Supreme Court Rebuffed Texas Suit Fighting Biden-Trump Election Outcome”

Bill, I am a member.
While viewing your programs on line, I have been unable to post comments to your various articles or reply to other comments posted by members.

This comment is originating from the recent email from you. It’s your email about the SCOTUS failure to consider the Texas lawsuit against swing state’s failure to meet constitutional requirements. While I too find it reprehensible that the supremes failed us, I am primarily concerned about my difficulty in making either comments to your posts or replies to other member’s comments.

The display accompanying your emailed article includes ten shaded cells directly over the member response window. It would be nice to have an explanation of the functions of each of the ten cells. Finally, the emailed article has a green “POST COMMENT” cell allowing the transmission of this comment to you.

While I was initially able to see and use the described displays on my browser entry into my billwhittle.com’s article’s comment function, those displays are no longer visible. Imagine my joy upon seeing the full comment enabling display while viewing this recent email.

Could use a little help on comment function. Look for a reply email containg screenshots of what I found in your scotus email that enabled this very long missive.

Thanks,
Ken Ratchford

The SCOTUS exercised restraint. Had they agreed to immediately hear the case, a new precedent would have been set and all future elections likely would be challenged. I don’t want five people determining how each Presidential election from now on will be decided. On a broader note, it is possible the challenges in federal court could result in some state electoral college votes being invalidated, bu such decisions may be a year or two from now. Just how the Congress or SCOTUS would deal with such a revelation is difficult to fathom. Yes, the can is being kicked down the road and possibly off a cliff.

Well said Scott. I believe that in this episode you are the voice of reason. We want SCOTUS to be true to our Constitution. That being the only side they take. However, I don’t think this is over.

The bottom line is that this doesn’t matter. Trump would have been happy if the SCOTUS took it, but I don’t think he ever relied on it.
The big question is which batch of electoral college votes will Pence count on January 6th? Seven state legislatures submitted alternative ballots. The election isn’t over yet.

The oaths of office are not to the commander-in-chief nor to the president who nominated you.
Your oaths of office are to protect and defend the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. All 330 million of us.
I suspect chief justice Roberts was the most influential voice in their cowardly decisions.
Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.
There is no safety net for SCOTUS
If SCOTUS declines to perform their jobs, send them home.

They could have said it creates a dangerous precedent. They could have said its a special case due to Covid 19 and wont affect 2024. They could have said other countries did the same things Pennsylvania etc did. They could have said that the remedy of states sending dueling electors is sufficient. Yet they said nothing.
I am 100 % sure Trump discussed this type of vote with his three picks before choosing them. I suspect he gave them instructions. My guess is that he needs it to be decided in the joint session of congress on Jan 6th. Not the Supreme court or anywhere else. The whole of congress must face the music after the choice. Politicians, including RINO’s, bench warmers and blue dog democrats must be brought to the point of decision with the words Civil War ringing in their ears.
Trump has said if this can’t be done in one 4 year term it can’t be done.
Then what.

Thank you for mentioning it! I listen to the podcasts on this page more than I watch the videos, but recently they all play that same older one

Um … Yes, Steve, enlisted personnel do swear an Oath of Enlistment and here it is as it is administered by the United States Marine Corps —

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Kindly do not make that mistake again, please.

Semper Fidelis means “Always Faithful” and I do not know one single Marine who considers him or her self materially released from that Oath either on active duty or in the post active phase of life.

I do know of Marines who have abandoned their oath though that is considered an act of perfidy by the rest of us, not an actual legitimate release from the terms of that oath.

Because “Once a Marine, Always a Marine” means just that. As long as you’re a Marine, your oath is in force and you’re always a Marine.

Semper Fi and Merry Christmas.

I love you “doggies”, I just want to make that clear.

I’ve worked with Army personnel in various training scenarios. Army teaches Jump School (Bragg/Benning) and anti-armor (Knox), Marines teach small unit Mountain Warfare, etc. We work together a lot. I’m still a Jarhead to you and you’re still a Doggie to me. But I love you, bro. That’s respect and if it doesn’t look like it to outsiders. Scroom.

My Dad was a Jarhead so I won’t hold that against you 🙂
Brothers at arms ALWAYS! Love you too man. Before this gets too mushy let me say to you………HOOAH!

The answer is “yes” Steve, enlisted soldiers must take an oath, sworn to defend, etc…. I took that oath over 40 years ago and though retired, the oath still stands for me.
Scott is wrong! My vote was negated by this massive fraud. The Supreme Court has a responsibility to make sure that our most sacred right of voting is protected. Don’t he needs to understand that there will be no next time. This vote is being stolen. End of discussion.

While this looks frustrating on its surface, I can see how the Texas case didn’t have enough scope to allow the kind of decision we really want to see. I just hope there’s a better case in the pipeline that the Supreme Court won’t punt.

Scott, the Supreme Court does not have broad trust. Half of the broads in this country didn’t trust Kavanaugh.
For other reasons, I don’t trust him now, either.

Our family had experience with the justice system when someone was arrested and pled guilty to a crime. It’s never what you think, and you are always expected to put your own views aside in favor of what a lawyer or judge says, even though it becomes pretty clear that all they have is an opinion, just like you do. Except their opinion is supposed to matter more. Laws are written by lawyers or a staff of lawyers, and are written in such a way that many of them can be interpreted by other lawyers who have their own opinions about what the law says. That’s why you’ll see several Constitutional lawyers on any given day arguing over what the Constitution means about a given subject. If you have a lawyer or a judge tell you what a law says or means, chances are 100% that you’ll find some other lawyer or judge with something different to say about it. The terrible thing for us as Citizens is that so much of life revolves around these legal opinions that may or may not be accurate. In this case, why wouldn’t other States have standing in a case about an election outcome that affects the rest of us? I’ve always felt that lawyers try and interpret laws in ways that favor themselves first and foremost, and use their education to muddy the waters. We’re not lawyers, so we certainly can’t know what the law says or means. You have to be a member of their club to understand it, so tough luck.

If the D’s get away with this there will never be another honest election in this country ever again (at least for Fed level offices). They will be so emboldened they will do it every single time.
The Demons (D)’s are unifying under a new slogan “Just Move On”
Translation – We’re going to cheat whether you like it or not, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.

I’m with Steve on this one. That is, what happens when an Oath of Office is ignored and/or otherwise violated? As we see with our own eyes when politicians regularly: Ignore the plain English in the Constitution, lie to Congress (and the American people), store classified information on personal computers, aid and abet China spies, take bribes from foreign governments and/or their officials, lie to judges and the FBI for political gain, and on-and-on, NOTHING HAPPENS!!! No pain, LOTS of gain!!
But, when private citizens want to work and keep their businesses open to support themselves, their families and their employees, they get shut-down and/or arrested! HUH?!? What!?!? What would happen if 1/2 of America “forgets” to pay their income taxes this year, or keeps their business open, or reopens them, after their licenses and permits to do so are revoked for ignoring illegal shut-down orders?!? What are laws for? Just to keep lawyers employed, or what?!?!?
I have ALWAYS said, I HATE LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS, because I do not believe they are necessary in a just and civil society, BUT if we ARE GOING TO HAVE THEM, WE ARE GOING TO USE THEM!!!

Bill has a pretty big miss on this one. His argument is nice, but is not based on facts. SCOTUS is not an arbiter of all disputes of all kinds. It is final arbitrator for cases involving federal law. But it is not for cases on state law. If you have a problem regarding state law, you have to fight it out with the state. Escalating to SC of that state.
For inter-state disputes indeed SCOTUS has the original jurisdiction, but just that fact does not allow states to start poking at each others’ lawmaking or execution.
Here, as the verdict stated TX did not provide a good argument how it is injured by the internal work of election delegating of the other states. It said its elector pool gets diluted — nut is is clearly not the case in the EC system. (It would be, if president was elected by total popular vote!). As I see, SCOTUS had a number of fishy verdicts and from the trust-in-lawssystem perspective I’d expect every decision be made 9:0, deviation from that alone points to problem in either the laws or the judges — when the highest judges have split opinion on something what could you expect from lower levels and especially the ordinary people?
But here it was a fine 9:0 decision. Thomas and Alitoonly objected to the form, the motion asked to file a bill of complaint and I agree with their argument that the due course would be to accept the motion to file, and then immediately dismiss the filed complaint for no standing. It would not have made any practical difference.
I’m also sad and angry about what happened, the obvious massive fraud and getting away with it, but we should keep the blame on the real wrongdoers: those who did the cheating, and those who allowed it to pass, while had other options. Especially the legislation of those states, that could have prevented usurping well before the election or do some remedy afterwards. They did nothing. Deliberately. They assisted in the steal alright. People should take that out on them. Instead of asking intervention by outsiders to invoke some deus ex machina.
Those cases should be run within all the states and be won there. If the related SCs refuse it like we saw in MI, then that is the corruption level in the state. (I tried to figure out if such SC decision can be appealed at SCOTUS, the material is not very helping, the most convincing said only if the debate is about federal law application, not local…)

When states have disputes between themselves, one state cannot have judicial power over the other by virtue of the fact that neither one has jurisdiction within the other.
Whether laws are Constitutional or not seems within the purview of The SCOTUS. Whether laws violate the rights of citizens (regardless of the residence of those citizens) seems a valid duty of SCOTUS. Whether a federal election suffered significant fraud at the hands of multiple systems within multiple states to the harm of citizens within many of the same and other states seems unquestionably the purview of SCOTUS.
Arguments between states in court originate in the Supreme Court. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1.

Their corruption affects the whole of the country, so the SC would be the only option to prevent their corruption from deciding the election. Those 9 people on the bench are all cowards.

Sorry Bill, that’s not how the legal system works. Nici Prius (Courts of Original Jurisdiction) judge evidence. Appellate Courts, including the ultimate appellate court (The Supreme Court) rule on questions of law. Yes, there is evidence of fraud and what we really want is for this evidence to be adjudicated. Sadly, thus far, all nici prius courts have failed to reach the evidentiary stage of adjudication. They throw out the cases for various legal and procedural causes. If someone were to file an appeal to these decisions, it might reach the Supreme Court and the Justices could possibly rule that those laws and procedures were misapplied thereby causing cases to be returned and evidence to be presented and adjudicated. If someone were to pursue this issue properly, we might not be so damn frustrated. But, they’re not and we are…

Looks like Bill got a little upset over this one. Don’t expect any relief from the state legislatures. The corruption runs too wide and deep in those states. Don’t expect any relief from SCOTUS either; However, Sydney Powell and the Electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona (Michigan or Wisconsin) have filed lawsuits against those states election laws with the SCOTUS. Arguing the same claims Texas made in their suite. But, in this case they do have Standing. If the SCOTUS doesn’t hear these new cases this time, then we don’t have a SCOTUS. So we will see what happens there.
Something else the MSM isn’t telling us (Shocker) is that on December 14 the swing states also sent the Republican electors to the electoral college. Although uncertified they are there. Hawaii did this in the 1960 presidential election in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon. Ultimately I think congress and Mike Pence will decide who the next President is. The more this “Election” progresses through the election process the more it favors TRUMP.
WWGOWGA!!

I don’t understand why the lay people who can be identified as assisting in the carrying out of the voting fraud be arrested and brought to trial. Maybe if they were rounded up and sent to jail…well, I can hope…in the next elections, people may not be so easily persuaded to cheat. The Big Guys are getting the benefit. The little guys put them there. Maybe we should start at the bottom and work our way up. Gather that evidence. Put people in jail or fine them severely, then proceed to the t layer. Trials are built on evidence that can be proved, and that proof needs the blessing of a ruling.

So do I but I’m not ever going to rely even a tiny bit on people that go around spouting Q-Anon slogans. Doing that loses every smidgen of credibility I can have for that person as far as I’m concerned.

History will record that the presidency of Donald J Trump revealed the rampant corruption of America’s government at all levels. Ascending to the top position of our government, DJT, chose to blatantly serve We, the People, and at the same time shine a glaring light on the swamp creatures that serve themselves.

Unlike Bill, I AM a lawyer, and he is wrong on this one. This was a Constitutional challenge brought against 4 States, charging that they violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause in not holding to their own legislative rules in how they ran their elections, and that this failure had consequences – for which there is all sorts of evidence – which impacted Texas’ own election results weighting. That last bit was the weak point in the chain. If the SC had taken the case, they would not have ruled on claims of fraud. Bill, you would never have gotten closure on that from SCOTUS. I understand why the Court said Texas lacks standing, and Thomas and Alito did not disagree beyond saying that in matters of original jurisdiction, the SC has no choice but to take the case; and here was a dispute between States, period. This all sounds complex and unsatisfying, and it is, but the law is not and never will be the way to resolve the terrible election we have just witnessed. That there was industrial-scale fraud is beyond any rational doubt. Biden will be an illegitimate president. But SCOTUS is not the venue to fix what has happened.

If the D’s get away with this there will never be another honest election in this country ever again (at least for Fed level offices). They will be so emboldened they will do it every single time.
The Demons (D)’s are unifying under a new slogan “Just Move On”
Translation – We’re going to cheat whether you like it or not, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.

That was my take as well. It seems to me what the SC was saying was that the correct way to pursue this would have been for entities within the affected states to take the Sec. of States and/or courts who made the illegal rule changes … to court over it.

As far as the fraud – what in the world SHOULD have been done to get the evidence its day in court? ANY court? It seems to me most of the dismissals I read about had something to do with standing.

Personally, I think that no court took it because they didn’t want to be accused of “stealing” the election for Trump. I actually predicted this from the start. And the reason the new justices didn’t issue opinions at the SC was — well basically for the same reason. Fear of appearing to have a bias to the person who appointed them.

Christopher, if what you say is true (I am quite sure it follows the law, but truth and justice have little to do with the law), then how does one fight such rampant corruption? I cannot bring a case in the state of Pennsylvania; I am not a registered voter there. However, the blatant corruption of Pennsylvania does and will directly affect me, because the US government affects me. The only court which has any jurisdiction over both me and Pennsylvania is the Federal court system, and, in the final analysis, the Supreme Court. Bill is right; the law is full of technicalities which are used to destroy the purpose of the court system, but the courts are SUPPOSED to be where we go to get a resolution to our differences. By running for cover, the Supreme Court has failed its reason of existence.

That’s a great question, but you won’t like the answer. There isn’t one. When the great institutions all fail – the politicians of both parties (yes, too many Republicans too – PN has a GOP legislature), the FBI, the DoJ, the entire mainstream media, the Academy, Wall St, the social media titans, all of it – you’re plumb out of saviours. The law can’t, for all sorts of reasons ranging from technical rules like standing to evidentiary challenges to the fact that judges are people with families and don’t want to take risks. Don’t look to be saved. We have to save ourselves.

this was not a “dispute” between a couple of states over. .. say – how one state regulates the traffic on its roads… this was factual assertions that state’s A,B,C &D conducted federal elections that were utterly in contravention to their state constitution’s provisions and thereby in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution….

and what is the “state” but their citizens… and if those 4named states illegitimate fraudulent UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions are allowed to be “validated” and their poisonous quality is injected into the national election – THEN that results in my vote being made invalid… the UNACCEPTABLE being forced upon legal-legitimate voters as “acceptable” is itself intolerable…. and that is what the ” fight or flight” condition is all about

the result is unacceptable …

furthermore…. the assertion by some that there is “the next” election cycle” to address this evisceration of the Constitution is less than a “wet dream”… it’s delusional in epic proportions…
Semper Fi

… the law is not and never will be the way to resolve the terrible election we have just witnessed.

Then please tell me how such things are to be resolved without the use of bullets? If the Law is neutered to such a degree, then it seems that we are already living in a failed nation, because the election process is already a lost cause.

Couldn’t disagree with you more. Your legalese doesn’t cut it. There was no other remedy for the states who carried their complaint forward in a stolen election. I may have more common sense than the SCOTUS. At least TWO judges agree with me and I give them each 50% of the vote. That equals being !00% right. Dominion lemonade!

Perhaps SCOTUS spread the American people’s cheeks for Biden in an attempt to curry favor and avoid the threat of ‘packing the court’.
I think a similar thing happened during the New Deal when Roosevelt threatened the same.

‘Nice court ya got there , would be a shame if anything happened to it.’

The mere threat of packing keeps them in line. In the unlikely event we ever have control again , we need a constitutional amendment nailing down the number nine. Republicans have never threatened this despite all the crazy rulings against us. Not a peep from the press , can you imagine if Trump threatened to add six more conservatives? The press would be in an uproar. As Dennis Miller often says ‘ They play rough and they play for keeps , wear a cup’

Seems to me that we think of the leftists as playing SO rough because they haven’t been legally slapped down for all to hear and see, tried in a court of law, found guilty, sentenced, served time and have been dishonored. Voila! Comey is now a professor of law at Columbia. Good grief!

If a state like Pennsylvania conducts an election fraudulently and it affects only the local election, the Supreme Court has no standing or obligation. In other words, For local elections, I would agree with the Supreme Court decision. The fraud in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia nullifies the efforts of every other state that worked to run their elections legally. For a national election, the Supreme Court has a legal obligation to intervene. The Supreme Court is supposed to address disputes between states, that is why they exist!

Cop-out!!Apparently SCOTUS is a fishbowl of frightened hiding guppies or are they just parasitic remoras hanging off the Democrat underbelly? Didn’t want to get too close to those sharp Democrat teeth,eh? More concerned about process than justice? What a travesty. New low for the court. Shame on the seven. Double triple quadruple shame!!!

I believe that the election was fraudulent.
We have often complained of judges bending the law to fit their beliefs or political necessity. Scott is pretty much on the mark- if a State had standing in this manner it might have standing in any case where it could claim some damage from another State.Standing is a tricky concept; it’s often used properly and often as a dodge.
I’m thinking (sadly) that the Court was correct in this matter.
Lousy precedent.if they took the case.
Much as I love him Bill is wrong on this one. The Supreme Court is NOT a trial court; it is an appellate court.

I have to agree with you and not Bill this time. Shapiro explained this pretty well on his show just after the decision was handed down. It would set a precedent for states to challenge each others laws and how they were administered, which would be a disaster for the Republic.

The malfeasance of states where that malfeasance injures other states is precisely one of the responsibilities the SCOTUS has. SCOTUS determined that Texas was not injured by the other states’ malfeasance. That is a different scenario altogether. SCOTUS chose the path of least resistance, in my opinion.

I agree. They took path of least resistance. It just seemed like they had a good reason for taking that path.

Really??? More of a disaster than having Bejing Biden and his crew of commies in the WhiteHouse? You must not understand the hell we are moving into in the next 4 years and beyond if Biden gets in. Come back and let us know how that works out because the Texas lawsuit was going to be a “disaster for the Republic.” Are you serious?

I Don’t want Biden to be president. I know the election was rigged, but I’m not sure there’s a way to prove it within the time span that the Constitution allows. This was high tech ballot box stuffing, after months of high tech propaganda from a mostly left media. I want President Trump to make every legal effort to retain the office, which he is working on. The Texas lawsuit wasn’t even part of his strategy, it was a third party suit. And because I heard another argument about that suit and thought it credible, I’m not on the side of President Trump? Rubbish. Yes, I’m serious about what I thought of the argument against the Texas suit. If you have a rebuttal about that argument I’ll hear it. To quote another famous talk show host, “Change my Mind”

Well, Shapiro is often wrong.
I’ve said for many years that judicial precedent will be the demise of our nation. If Shapiro’s claims are true, then so will be my own.

I don’t agree with everything Shapiro says. I’m way more a Trump fan than he is. But his argument had merit in my not-a-lawyer mind. If the Supreme Court acted in this case, it could open options for leftist activist states to sue red states over gun laws, over abortion restrictions, and probably things I haven’t thought of. Shapiro used abortion as an example, but I was raised in Chicago, so I thought of a different example. Illinois regularly blames Indiana for Chicago’s violence instead of their own poor administration. Should they have grounds to sue Indiana and force Indiana to do write and enforce their laws in a way that Illinois prefers? It just seemed like a good point, but I’m willing to hear a good rebuttal. I don’t want Biden to be president and I’m not saying that if he’s indeed inaugurated in January that I’ll be supportive of his administration. But it’s a left leaning tendency to make a rule or abandon a rule for short term gain, without ever thinking it could be used against them some day. I don’t want to be like that.

Leave a Reply