Life and Hockey

Life is a big hockey game.

If the referee does not call the game fairly and impartially, in time the players will take matters into their own hands.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the state of Texas (by not taking up the case) who filed a lawsuit against various states, including Pennsylvania, because of the way that these states conducted their voting for the recent Presidential election. The basis for this lawsuit was that these states had violated the Constitutional rights of Texans.

The Supreme Court is thus prosecuting the notion that avoiding an issue as important as election fraud will make the problem go away.

It will not.

The problem is that nearly 70,000,000 Americans believe that the election was fraudulent.

Let’s not tackle the issue now as to whether it was; suffice it to say that people believe it was.

Citizens have filed afadavits testifying to this fraud.

If fraud was committed that is the damage to the country. If that damage exists, it needs to be addressed.

What the Supreme Court is doing is akin to a doctor turning off a heart alarm in the ICU in order to solve a problem.

If the doctor doesn’t hear it, it’s not there.

Veto.

The problem is not the alarm; the problem is what the alarm represents.

The main stream media of course can be counted on to backup the Supreme Court’s decision to not take up this case.

Life is a big hockey game.

If the referee does not call the game fairly and impartially, in time the players will take matters into their own hands.

If the supporters of Trump who believe the election was rigged cannot get a fair hearing in the courts, they will take matters into their own hands.

Perhaps not this year, but the battle is inevitable if this problem is not equitably addressed, especially if the consequences of this election prove dire to the Trump supporters.

In other words Civil War is inevitable.

In many respects John Roberts is the reincarnation of Roger Taney.

Like Taney he is tone deaf.

In the Dred Scott decision, Taney’s Supreme Court felt that they could erase centuries of unfairness and discrimination against black people by turning a blind eye.

They thought they could sweep the problem under the rug.

They thought they could turn the alarm off on the patient whose heart rate was flatlining.

They tried and they lost.

The problem did not go away.

Similarly John Roberts and his court believe that they can make alleged election fraud go away simply by not hearing the case that the state of Texas filed against those states where election fraud was believed to have occurred.

Like Roger Taney, Roberts turns the alarm off on the patient whose heart rate is flatlining.

The cowards and corporate shills of the Supreme Court hide behind technicalities and obscure language.

The consensus interpretation of the Supreme Court opinion is that the state of Texas lacked standing to pursue this case against the other states.

Lacked standing?

So the state of Texas has no privilege to stand up for its own citizens being disenfranchised when another state changes their election laws which leads to fraudulent balloting?

Fraudulent balloting in another state which leads to a false electoral win for Joe Biden most certainly does effectively disenfranchise the voters in Texas; it negates their vote.

A state does have the moral right to pursue remediation if criminal activity is suspected in another state.

The logic of the Roberts Court here Is equivalent to the same poor logic, which is no logic, that was displayed in the Obamacare decision.

What Roberts, et al, are saying is that it’s okay for fraudulent balloting to occur in another state; in other words, that’s the law.

Since all good law must by necessity have a moral base, this law would be suspect as no one could possibly justify such a law on moral grounds.

But, as mentioned previously, the Roberts Court hides behind technicalities. They are ruling that the state of Texas has no right to infringe upon how Pennsylvania or any other state conducts its elections. Technically this is correct but only within the context of an honest election. If the state of Pennsylvania constructs a methodology which directly leads to fraudulent balloting, then the state of Texas does have a vested interest in pursuing a case against the state of Pennsylvania.

A simpleton can see this.

By not taking up this case John Roberts and his court have moved us one step closer to Civil War.

As mentioned previously, life is a big hockey game. If the referee does not call the game fairly and impartially, in time the players will take matters into their own hands.

This is a law no less true than that of gravity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s