Skip to content

The Supreme Court’s Day of Reckoning is Coming

The election of 2020 is going to lay bare the dereliction of the Supreme Court for all to see.  The COVD-19 pandemic gave numerous state election officials an excuse to implement far-reaching changes to our election processes.  Those changes obviously made our systems vulnerable to fraud.  States implemented massive mail-in balloting at the same time they relaxed ballot security and voter identification.  They even extended the voting periods — to give the criminals more time to commit their fraud.

All these changes were unconstitutional.  The Constitution clearly gives the various state legislatures the authority to define how their elections will be conducted — not state election officials.  Election officials are only empowered to conduct elections within the rules set forth by their respective legislatures — except, apparently, during a pandemic.  There must be a pandemic emanation hidden in a penumbra of the Constitution we didn’t know about.  Alarmed that the changes would invite fraud, various organizations filed lawsuits to stop the changes. 

"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Supreme Court declined to get involved.  It ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because nobody had been harmed — yet.  Since the election hadn’t happened, nobody was damaged, and there was no case to be heard.  They were thinking like a civil court, not the defenders of the Constitution they are sworn to be.  It was a cowardly way to stay out of the political controversy.  Unfortunately, it also missed an opportunity to defend the Constitution, which was clearly under attack.

After all the ad-hoc changes had been allowed to stand, the election of 2020 saw an unprecedented number of irregularities — too many to ignore.  Election observers were banned from observing the election.  Counting stopped in the middle of the night and then restarted after boxes of ballots were mysteriously found.  There are reports of ballots being driven across state lines — by the truckload.  There were even precincts that counted more ballots than there were registered voters!  A number of states filed lawsuits against the states in which these irregularities occurred.

Even though the Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of cases between states, it again refused to get involved.  They ruled that Texas couldn’t sue Pennsylvania because Texans had their votes accurately counted and therefore were not harmed by Pennsylvania.  Apparently having the wrong president crammed down the throats of Texans is not considered “harm.”  Given the flood of illegal aliens President Asterisk has invited — and the crime that has accompanied them — would the justices consider Texas “harmed” now?

A number of other cases were dropped because the court considered them “moot.”  The election had been certified and nothing was going to change that — hence no need to look at the evidence.  In the immortal words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, “At this point what difference does it make?”

The court seems to have three distinct voting blocs:

  1. The oath keepers — These are the justices that are willing to stand up and defend the Constitution even if it means they’ll have to endure attacks.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch make up this bloc.
  2. The jellyfish — These are the justices that lack the spine to face controversy.  They’re more concerned about defending the court than the Constitution.  Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh make up this bloc.
  3. The subversives — These are the justices that have been using penumbras and emanations to rewrite the constitution in pursuit of social engineering.  Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer make up this bloc.

It’s rumored that only three justices wanted to hear the 2020 election lawsuits.  Does anyone doubt that it was those who comprise the “oath keepers” bloc?

Now, Chief Justice Roberts has placed his court in a trick-box.  By choosing to stay out of the election controversy, John Roberts has bet the court’s reputation that the mysteries of the election would remain mysteries.  As wagers go, it was not a particularly smart one.  The election involved millions of ballots, tens of thousands of election workers, and thousands of counties.  If there was fraud, there is too much evidence, in too many hands, to stay hidden.

Tellingly, the Democrats are scrambling to keep the truth hidden, but it’s slowly coming out.  State sponsored forensic audits, as well as private investigations, are turning over the stones.  We’ll likely know the truth by the end of this year.  If it turns out that the election was stolen, the Supreme Court will be exposed as derelict, weak, and useless.  It will all be because the jellyfish bloc doesn’t understand the psychology of bullies.

The Supreme Court avoided involvement in the election because they wanted to stay out of the controversy — they didn’t want to be bullied by the Democrats or the media.  There are other possible motives, but they’re even more disturbing.  Cowing to bullies will not avoid conflict.  Bullies prey on weakness.  One has to either stand up to them eventually or accept servitude.  Every kid on the playground has learned that lesson by the 8th grade.  Apparently, John Roberts hasn’t.  Each time Chief Justice Roberts has acceded to the bullies, he’s made the court’s future challenge greater.

Ruling that last minute ad-hoc election changes were unconstitutional would have been relatively straightforward — but the court didn’t.  Hearing the election fraud evidence and adjudicating the result would have created a political crap-storm — but it would have been the right thing to do.  What will become of the court’s reputation if it becomes obvious that the election was stolen and rather than stand up, it sat down?

An April poll by Rasmussen Reports found  that 51% of the population believes that fraud affected the election outcome.  Does Roberts grasp the significance of that number?  It’s the percentage of the population who believe the Supreme Court was derelict in defending the Constitution.  If John Roberts wanted to defend the court, perhaps he should have considered pursuit of the truth rather than avoidance of controversy.

A recent Ipsos poll found that 63% of the public thinks it’s time to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices.  The public isn’t stupid.   It recognizes that the Supreme Court needs to be taken to the woodshed.  The next few months will say a lot about the Supreme Court.  Will it correct course, or will it embrace servitude to the mob?

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Star Idaho. He is a retired engineer with 40 years of experience in the areas of product development, quality assurance, organizational development, and corporate strategic planning. He currently writes at the American Free News Network ( 

He can be followed on Facebook or reached at

Image by William Murphy from Pixabay

This article was first published by American Thinker.

32 thoughts on “The Supreme Court’s Day of Reckoning is Coming”

  1. I wrote this months ago. My words must have influenced him. I’m flattered.

    SCOTUS has become by its own negligence a weak sister of a diffident Congress whom themselves are looking for relevance. The Supreme Court has devolved to the point where it is now composed of sub-groups of a sub-group of what used to be effective branches of government where We the People were the purpose; no longer, at least not with two of the three current sub-groups of the Supreme Court.
    The three groups of the Supreme Court are comprised of three equal groups of three justices each. The first group are Constitutionalists. They believe the Constitution is immutable Law bequeathed through spilled blood by our Founders and based on common law, God’s Law, and unalienable right. Thomas and Alito are dependable Constitutionalists who actually look at the intent of the Founders, while Gorsuch, a normally dependable member of this subset, sometimes acts like a free radical zooming in and out of orbit sniffing at the edges of a questionable law. Gorsuch often wants to please the other two groups in hopes of finding some penumbra of the Law justifying his siding with the more pseudo-Fabian group of the Court whose main purpose is to cast ominous shade on reason like menacing, blood drooling vampires.
    The polar opposite group from the Constitutionalists believes the Constitution is a living breathing document where it can mutate and morph into hideous contemporary faddism. This group, Marxist/Fabians, are composed of the liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer. This group believes down to their toes that the bad overcomes the good and should be codified. Mass abortions are just fine. These Europhiles believe mass migration include legalizing illegal behaviors is a human right. They also zealously defend that the environment is a god to whom all sacrifices are permissible.
    The last group, a labyrinth of perfidious and treacherous invertebrates, I call the Snake Pit – Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett. These three weaselly ingrates, chosen for their record and devotion to the Constitution, once gotten onto the Court, have become so cowed as to no longer feel inclined to ensure that Constitutional law is adhered. They are serpents, the bringer of chaos, corruption and darkness and all that is evil.

  2. john roberts – the Cowardly Lion heads this gutless nonfunctional group of mostly phony lawyers. We The People should demand term limits for SCOTUS.

  3. The Emancipation Proclamation Signing Day is way more important. Juneteenth disregards the actions of Republicans to end slavery and focuses on an isolated group of black people receiving information about what the Republicans did for them. Also, please note that I am a black man. Maybe we should have a holiday for that guy on an isolated island in the Pacific who thought the Korean war was still going on.

  4. The book by Mark Levin called Men in Black should be required reading. He lays out the courts corruption complete with back up. It was a eye opener for me.

  5. I never have, and never will, respect a man who wears a dress. Courts have been corrupt my entire life, I was taught at a young age that I would be best off to simply avoid all forms of government. Regardless of their stated motives, the only functions of a government are theft and enslavement.

  6. So, when a pig stops me for ‘speeding’, even though she went faster than I did, to catch up to me, the pig has NO STANDING because no one was harmed, right?
    WRONG, they want my money, so they’ll always have standing for victimless ‘crimes’ and we peasants won’t have standing to hold the political class parasites accountable.

  7. So, when a pig stops me for ‘speeding’, even though she went faster than I did, to catch up to me, the pig has NO STANDING because no one was harmed, right?
    WRONG, they want my money, so they’ll always have standing for victimless ‘crimes’ and we peasants won’t have standing to hold the political class parasites accountable.

  8. Most courts have become kangaroo courts. Instead of having neutral arbiters with fidelity to the law as judges we have political hacks.
    The last place to find law and justice is in an American court.

  9. Obviously the Founders wrote in the ultimate scape-goat. If a government of the People and for the People fails, it has to be the People’s fault.
    The Bill of Rights allows corrections as needed.

  10. Deplorable Joe Voter

    john roberts is a traitor. He’s a leftardian judicial activist. During the obamascare decision rather than send the flawed law back to the legislature, which was his job, he actually re-wrote it himself which he doesn’t have the power to do. Unless and until he is removed the junior “jellyfish” will side with him out of fear.

  11. Here’s why Trump’s S.C. picks have failed the character test. A President’s nominee must be one who can achieve Senate approval. The degree of rot in the Senate determines the (lack of) character of the nominee. This Senate would never approve an Samuel Alito, much less a Clarence Thomas.

  12. The SCOTUS isn’t worried about a “day of reckoning” (how preposterous). The justices are there for life, just so that there can be no reckoning. Add to that they helped the new permanent ruling party (the Democrats) steal the election! Why would the Democrats do anything to censure or punish them even if they could? No…the SCOTUS isn’t worried about any reckoning.

  13. I’ll defer to Sidney Powell: ” My comment for the press on SCOTUS rulings today: “The Supreme Court’s failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption.”

  14. The Supreme Court will not revisit the election. They will choose to not take responsibility for the outcome of overturning the status quo. To think otherwise is delusional Constitution or not.

  15. I haven’t had any use for the SCOTUS since Roe v Wade. Today is just a continuation of that. Nothing changed and no lessons learned. Anyone not a Constitutionalism should be thrown out. After all, defending the Constitution is supposed to be their ONLY JOB!

  16. When the SCOTUS refused to look at the TX vs. PA election, and only Sam Alito and the Great Clarence Thomas dissented, I realized that (1) Chief Justice Roberts had been fatally compromised and (2) that even President Trump and his seemingly great picks could not put a spine into that court. Amy Comey is the most disappointing justice ever nominated. She is a duplicitous coward who did what Roberts told her to do. She will never regain her reputation.

  17. First line of attack should be the state courts to force the legislatures to remove the state elections personnel. Screw SCOTUS.

  18. I have zero faith in the US Supreme Court. They rule politically, not constitutionally. The court has sadly become irrelevant to the constitution, and a threat to the Republic.

  19. You give SCOTUS the moniker “Cowards” ? More appropriately, I say they have committed treason. It is a difference of motivation. They are not trying to avoid a national confrontation or even protection of the courts as you claim with your hands covering your eyes. Those who say this bolster the ill-action of these robed Communists. They ran cover for the overthrow of a Presidential election thereby dealing a lethal blow to the Constitution! This violent attack should have been met with armed arrest by all State Citizens. Instead, all wrung their their hands as the flushing handle is depressed. Whoosh!

  20. I have lost all trust and respect for SCOTUS. John Robert’s has been compromised in some fashion , perhaps pictures at Epsteins island.

  21. The Supreme Court has failed the Constitution and, in so doing, failed Americans. Their shame will never be erased no matter how hard the progressives attempt to erase and rewrite history. One day they will be judged by the Eternal Judge and He will not mince or hold back his words that are due these wicked rulers in their dirtied, black robes.

  22. I use to have much respect for that robe and what they stood for but they’ve proven to be cowards who are only interested in self preservation…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *