Adam Carrington is a professor at Hillsdale College, an institution I greatly admire (their online courses are superb). He wrote a piece for the Federalist about the Texas v. Pennsylvania case today; unfortunately, I saw no way to respond directly, so I am hoping someone here can help me.
His point was that for the Supreme Court to rule in favor would be an egregious act of judicial activism, comparable to the Warren court (which gave us Roe v. Wade, among others). I found his argument very compelling, but it left me with a question.
If, as he said, a court overturning an election is an act of judicial activism, where else should we go when we feel that election fraud is present? Where else can we go? The executive branch is the source of the fraud, and the legislative branch has been essentially neutered. That only leaves the judicial branch. If that is closed off as well, then we, as citizens, have no avenue of recourse.
9 replies on “Question for Adam Carrington”
If the count merely delivered a judgment from on high, then yes that would be judicial activism. If they had assigned to a lower to hear evidence, then ruled on the evidence shown, that would be perfectly fine.
To just punt is cowardly.
This is a good example of what Bill described in “Up From Despair” how the anti-Americans use our own principles and decency and respect for norms to destroy us. On the other hand, Justice Holmes said “the Constitution is not a suicide pact,” but I guess our Justices forgot that insight.
Somehow we need to establish some guidelines for elections which cannot be corrupted by the Anti-Americans. Does that mean we need to work on getting the precise election rules into the state constitutions?
I guess my view on this is the Supreme Court should not be deciding on Trump being President. They should look at these cases and if the fraud and unconstitutional/illegal processes potentially could have swayed the election they just order those specific states decertified. The Constitution has processes for what happens then. It would go to the house of representatives for them to vote on the next President and I believe this happened once in the past and is the constitutionally laid out process. No where in the constitution does it says if someone wins an election fraudulently you have to ignore it. Letting this fraud go is much much more dangerous than any other scenario. If we ignore it now, why would they stop next election cycle? We fight it now or never and the Constitution does have processes in place for if an election result can’t be trusted from what I have heard that doesn’t involve the supreme court placing someone into office.
Okay, Cole. I agree that we have a procedure in place when (enough) electoral votes have their certification removed. And I am all for that.
I also agree that we have to fight for election integrity and we have to fight now or we will never have a good election again.
But my question is how? Texas did not ask the Supreme Court to elect/appoint Donald Trump. They asked for the removal of the certification of the results of the elections in the four states, and left it up to the states on how to correct the fraud (state legislature, new election, throw out some precints, whatever). Isn’t that what you are asking for? But they were denied the chance to even ask the question.
I wish I knew the answer to that. Ben Shapiro has been discussing the same concept… that no matter how much we would like to have this wrong “righted”, we would be setting a dangerous precedent. One example he used was that then when they lost they could go to the SCOTUS to claim that states that used voter ID were causing a harm.
Lets explore that idea. One of the sources of the fraud, in Georgia for sure and I also think in Pennsylvania, was the elimination of signature verification. So the question becomes how does that harm me, who does not live in either of those states? If I am not directly harmed, according to the principle of “legal standing”, then I cannot bring a case to court.
If that is the case, then the only people who could bring a case on this issue, or any similar issue, would be a resident of that state. However, that throws the issue back into the state courts, which, as we have seen, are perfectly willing to abet the fraud.
You see my point? The only people who are willing to fight the fraud are the ones who cannot fight the fraud. The “legal standing” principle leads us into a classic Catch-22 position.
Mark Levin discussed this on his radio show yesterday, and essentially said that SCOTUS used the concept of standing as an excuse to not rule on the case. Even those voters who are residents of other states are, in this case affected, because fraud in four states was perpetrated on the entire country, thereby invalidating legitimate, legal votes, no matter where they were cast.
I agree, the “legal standing” principle was indeed used as a cover to duck and run by SCOTUS. Is there any way to push back?