by Dr. Eowyn
A week ago, on December 11, 2020, in a 7:2 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging the election results in the four battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Trump had won those states in 2016 and was winning on election night 2020 until the counting of votes was abruptly halted. When the counting resumed the next morning, lo and behold, Biden surged ahead.
Texas’ lawsuit was joined by 106 GOP members of Congress and supported by 17 GOP-controlled states — Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
State of Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al., argued that officials in the four battleground states conducted the 2020 general election in violation of the U.S. Constitution because they had illegally altered election laws, causing a flood of mail-in votes without appropriate ballot integrity measures in place. Texas maintained the resulting irregularities put the ultimate outcome of the presidential election in doubt.
But the Supreme Court, in an unsigned one-page order, dismissed the suit on the grounds that Texas lacked legal standing or right to sue under the Constitution because the state had not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections. All three justices whom Trump had nominated — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett — sided with the majority. The two lone dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who disagreed with the ruling on standing, arguing that the Supreme Court should hear the case, but did not otherwise find for the plaintiffs.
Now we know why SCOTUS squashed the Texas lawsuit.
Chief Justice John Roberts, whom conservatives already regard as suspect for his vote that ensured the Supreme Court’s rulings for “gay” marriage and Obamacare (see here), quashed the Texas lawsuit in fear of riots. In other words, Roberts and the other 6 justices were so intimidated by the terrorist tactics of the Black Lives Matter riots, they relinquished their sworn duty to the American people to uphold justice and the U.S. Constitution.
First reported on December 12 by the Hal Turner Radio Show “from a source deep inside the US Supreme Court,” this is now verified by a C-SPAN video tweeted by Howard Mortman, who identifies himself as “C-SPAN Communications Director“.
I first saw the video yesterday on a tweet by Kyle Becker. But this morning, I discovered that Twitter had already taken down Kyle’s tweet (see here). So I’ve saved Mortman’s video and uploaded it to FOTM‘s media library.
The video is a C-SPAN clip of an unidentified grey-haired man testifying before the Electoral College on December 14. Epoch Times has identified the grey-haired man as a GOP Texas elector, Matt Patrick.
Here’s the video (transcript to follow):
This is what Matt Patrick said:
“It was written by someone who is a current staffer for one of the Supreme Court justices. I’ll just describe the report to you that I read, and you can make of it what you will.
He said that the justices, as they always do, went into a closed room to discuss cases they’re taking, their debate. There’s no phones, no computers, no nothing, no one else is in the room except for the nine justices. It’s typically very civil, you don’t usually hear any sound, they just debate what they’re doing. But when the Texas case was brought up, he [the staffer] said he heard screaming through the walls. As Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up, and the reason — the words that were heard through the wall when Justices Thomas and Alito were citing Bush v. Gore — from John Roberts were ‘I don’t give a f__ about that case, I don’t wanna hear about it. At that time, we didn’t have riots.’
So what he was saying was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing. And I’m sorry, but that is moral cowardice. And we in the SREC*, I’m a SREC member, we put those words in very specifically because the charge of the Supreme Court is to ultimately be our final arbitrator, our final line of defense for right and wrong, and they did not do their duty. So I think we should leave these words in because I want to send this oral message to them. Thank you.”
*Note: SREC is the State Republican Executive Committee, the 64-member governing board of the Republican Party of Texas.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court has denied what was claimed in the C-SPAN video.
The spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email yesterday that the court “has been conducting its conferences remotely by phone since March when the building closed due to the pandemic.”
According to the Supreme Court’s website, the justices have not met in person for months because of the COVID-19 China virus pandemic:
The Court will hear all oral arguments scheduled for the November and December sessions by telephone conference. In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely. The oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. On days when more than one case will be heard, there will be a three minute pause before the second case begins,” the court’s website says.
Jim Pickle, also a Republican elector in Texas, disagreed with Patrick on sending a message to SCOTUS on the grounds of hearsay. Pickle said:
“Sending a message like this to a body of legislators or judicial officers is not going to get the attention you want to get. Nobody knows what happened in that conference room on purpose. Hearing yelling, the triple hearsay, quadruple hearsay now, about what is going on in that room, you cannot make your decision on that basis.”
H/t FOTM reader Tim Shey.