Non-Adjudication Is Not an Option

Non-Adjudication Is Not an Option
The Supreme Court is illuminated in Washington on Oct. 12, 2020. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Stephen B. Meister
The Supreme Court’s refusal on Dec. 11—purely on standing grounds—marks the latest in a long line of courts all of whom have refused to hear the evidence of alleged widespread voter fraud (enabled by the unconstitutional acts of non-legislative actors in four of the six swing states still under dispute).
The Supreme Court’s refusal to reach the merits—over the dissents of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—was, I fear, a tragic error of grave magnitude.

Settled Law Supports Texas’s Standing

While Texas’s claim to standing was unconventional, the high court could have easily heard the case: Well-settled law supported the opposite conclusion.
As Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the court more than a half-century ago in Reynolds v. Sim—when striking down a racially based gerrymandering of voting districts in Alabama—wrote: “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”

The court went on to observe that “to the extent that a citizen’s right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen.” The chief justice noted that the one-person, one-vote principle, free of “debasement or dilution,” lies “at the heart of Lincoln’s vision of ‘government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.’”

There can be no question, therefore, that the citizens of Texas have had their precious constitutional right of suffrage “debased and diluted” by the unconstitutional acts of non-legislative actors in the defendant states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin).

Under the electors’ clause, the state legislatures are given exclusive power to determine the “manner” in which the state’s presidential electors are chosen.

Texas didn’t take issue with the election laws of the four defendant states.

On the contrary, Texas’s claim was that “non-legislative actors”—election officials, hyper-partisan courts, and, in some cases, elected and appointed members of the executive branch—took steps to override the election laws of the defendant states.

For example in Pennsylvania, by a split 4–3 decision, which Alito has already called “likely unconstitutional,” the Pennsylvania Supreme Court effectively repealed the state legislature’s 8 p.m. Election Day deadline for mailed ballots, and replaced it with their own three-days later deadline for mail-in ballots (in a case that was a coordinated effort between hyper-partisan Pennsylvania officials and the hyper-partisan Pennsylvania Supreme Court).

In Georgia, Democratic political operatives brought suit challenging Georgia’s duly enacted signature check verifications for mailed ballots, and the case was “settled” by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who is not a member of the Georgia legislature, in an agreement that rewrote the act of the state legislature.

Texas’s claim was that these non-legislative actors acted unconstitutionally when they overrode the duly enacted laws of their own (Republican-controlled) state legislatures, because only the legislatures, under the U.S. Constitution, have the power to decide the manner of choosing electors. As a result, Texas sought to have the popular votes in the defendant states declared unconstitutional, but asked the court to remand the matter of each defendant state choosing their electors in a constitutional manner, i.e., by the act of the state legislatures.

Every unlawful vote in a defendant state counted for Biden canceled out one lawful vote for Trump in Texas, as the unlawfully procured electors of the defendant states—62 in total—are enough to steal the election and cancel out Texas’s 38 Trump-pledged electors.

And while its true that named Texas voters themselves weren’t plaintiffs, the Texas attorney general, under settled law, acts for them as parens patriae—the “parent-at-law” for the millions of disenfranchised voters of Texas.

Regardless, President Donald Trump himself sought to intervene, and the Supreme Court saw no standing issues in Bush v. Gore.

Finally, the unconstitutional acts of the non-legislative actors in the defendant states also had the effect of fraudulently electing Kamala Harris as vice president, and the vice president acts as president of the Senate. Clearly Texas has a stake, like all other states, having two senators, in the control of the Senate.

At the very least, given that the motion was simply for leave, or permission, to file a complaint, and didn’t test whether the complaint itself had merit or could be prosecuted to completion, the court could have granted the motion—given the uncontested constitutionally mandated original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear “disputes among states”—allowed the mere filing of the case, and directed defendant states to immediately move to dismiss the complaint based on further briefing on the standing issue.

Said another way, given that the Constitution explicitly vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over “disputes among the states,” Article III, Section II, there’s absolutely no question Texas had standing to seek permission to file a complaint, and the question whether Texas had standing to pursue its underlying claims could and should have been deferred a few days, given the staggering importance of the claims, so the court could consider further targeted briefing on the standing issue. That’s what I would have done, and I believe what Alito and Thomas were saying in their joint dissenting statement.

There’s Still Time, and a Few Paths

Trump himself can bring the same claims, but the cases must start in federal district court, as those cases aren’t a “dispute among states” over which the Supreme Court has original (trial court) jurisdiction.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. The future of our great nation—indeed, the continuing existence of the Republic as we know it—is at stake.

The people yearn for, and properly demand, an adjudication on the merits. Is that too much to ask after 18 states and 126 members of Congress joined in support of the Texas’s suit? Those states (19 including Texas) are home to more than 100 million U.S. citizens.

Absent a prompt adjudication on the merits of Texas’s claims, it’s not an overstatement to say we could see a push for secession of the law-abiding states, as Texas state lawmaker and Republican chair Allen West has already openly proposed, if not violent civil unrest.

Magna Carta to the American Revolution: 8-Century March to Freedom Being Reversed

Western civilization—and more broadly, mankind at large—has undertaken what is now a more than 800-year-long journey, starting with the Magna Carta Libertatum of 1215—in which the theretofore absolute power of King John of England was, for the first time in history, subjected to important limitations by a group of objecting barons—to the “American Experiment,” which, prompted by the great philosophers of the Enlightenment led by John Locke, 5 1/2 centuries later culminated in replacing “divine right” with the “consent of the governed” as the sole legitimate source for the government’s power.

This (so far) eight-century-long journey hasn’t been without reversals. While divine right has been fairly well extinguished as a source of ruling power in the modern world, it was replaced with an arguably more corrupt, more ruthless, and more barbaric form of “consent-less” government in some areas of the world: totalitarian communism.

By controlling the media, and therefore all information available for consumption by the people, and fraudulently rigging elections to create the false impression of the consent of the governed, totalitarian one-party rule took root, most notably, in the former Soviet Union, and then China—thus paying lip-service to the Enlightenment theory of the consent of the governed as the sole legitimate source for the power to govern, while, in reality, achieving the same totalitarian rule wielded by Medieval monarchs with no such consent.

A staggering 100 million people have been slaughtered at the hands of communists—Bolsheviks who began the Russian Revolution, and, as one Wall Street Journal reporter put it, the “communist regimes that the Soviet Union created and supported—including those in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia. That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history.”
To this day, the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in horrific human rights violations and persecution of “enemies of the state” including Uyghur Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners. Religion itself is the enemy of the communist totalitarian state because the state replaces God. Horrifyingly, the Chinese Communist Party is harvesting organs from their imprisoned enemies.
Think I’m being melodramatic and that none of this could happen in the United States? Think again.

Stalinist, Maoist Tactics Already Present in US

Stalinist and Maoist tactics have already taken root in the United States. At least two members of Congress have already called for compiling a “list of Trump supporters” so that “they may be held accountable.” Trump supporters are the enemies of the communist American state.

Mainstream Democrats such as New York senator and Senate minority leader Charles Schumer, referring to the Senate run-offs in Georgia, recently said, “Now we take Georgia, then we change America.” He’s referring to packing the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster, adding Washington and Puerto Rico as states (to pack the Senate), and finally the ultimate packing—packing the electorate by granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Those steps will ensure one-party rule, the first step toward totalitarian communism.

Tragically, well-intentioned, non-communist, moderate liberals are blind to this unfolding American tragedy.

Horrifyingly, the very claims raised by Texas put us at the doorstep of this terrifying abyss, having the potential to set humanity back on our great democratic journey more than eight centuries, with all the terrors history teaches that beholds.

No Innocent Explanation for Nov. 4 Early-Morning Blue-Shift

I won’t delve into the merits of the mountains of evidence of voter fraud put forth in the Texas complaint. But not one whit of that evidence need be examined to know—to a practical certainty—that the election was stolen, through widespread fraud.
As I wrote on these pages on Dec. 9—shortly after midnight (Eastern time) on election night, Trump was leading in all six of the swing states still at issue: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. Yet during the early morning hours of Nov. 4, not one or two, but all six states flipped for Biden.
The early-morning Nov. 4 “blue-shift” took place only in the six swing states, some through a series of “spikes,” almost entirely consisting of mailed ballots (made possible due to radical changes in voting laws amid the CCP virus pandemic) in which Biden received the vast majority of the votes.

As I observed, somehow Biden did very poorly in all parts of the country except, only and exactly, where it mattered. And Trump improved his 2016 performance (just shy of 63 million votes) by 20 percent in 2020 (more than 74 million votes). No incumbent president in U.S. history has ever improved his original performance that much and lost. For example, Obama garnered 3.5 million fewer votes in 2012, yet won a second term.

In short, there’s no innocent explanation for what took place in the early morning hours of Nov. 4. None. The results are entirely inexplicable other than by widespread voter fraud, largely through: 1. harvested mail-in ballots, which became universal, or nearly universal (in contrast to legitimate “absentee ballots”), as the radical left weaponized the CCP virus, and 2. alleged wholesale electronic manipulation.

It’s not as if Biden is a candidate of any substance, as, for example Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would have been. Showing repeated signs of cognitive decline, the 78-year-old, 47-year Washington insider, has accomplished little to nothing in his nearly half-century of “service,” and is besieged by well-supported claims of influence peddling and bribery, courtesy of his son Hunter. In short, Biden is a figurehead for the radical left, nothing more.

Stealing of Election: Continuation of 4-Year-Long Coup

The stealing of the 2020 election, as I wrote previously, follows a nearly four-year-long failed nonviolent coup (including the bogus Mueller investigation and failed impeachment attempt). Political hack election officials and hack appointed and elected government officials, corrupt and complicit news and social media outlets (who buried the Hunter Biden laptop scandal), and partisan or gun-shy courts, all allegedly worked together to bring about a massive, fraudulent post-Election Day “blue shift” exactly and only where it mattered, and it looks like the conspirators are now desperately, aggressively, and collaboratively “running out the clock” so that well-supported fraud charges are never adjudicated.

The Republic Faces an Existential Threat

As usual, it was the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia who hit the nail on the head. In Bush v. Gore, he wrote:

“The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”

The same is surely true today.

In short, we are being threatened, via an irredeemably and undisputedly fraudulent election, with an eight-century regression in human advancement, in favor of totalitarian, one-party, communist rule. We must fight with all we’ve got, as we did to win our independence from King George and to abolish slavery. The stakes are just as high.

There are still a few paths to unstealing the election and arresting the creeping fraudulent totalitarian communist takeover and destruction of our constitutional republic.

As the Supreme Court announced in McPherson v. Blacker, the power to select electors is a “plenary” power of the state legislatures, and of this “there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.”

What Can We Do?

I have four suggestions:
  • Trump must immediately pursue district court cases raising the fraud in the six swing states.
  • The 18 states supporting the Texas case, and Texas, along with the 106 congressmen who supported the case, should immediately pen a letter imploring the lawmakers of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada to exercise the “plenary” power granted exclusively to them by the Constitution, and appoint Trump-pledged electors, or at the least send a resolution to Congress disavowing the Biden-pledged electors.
  • The same 19 states should adopt a joint resolution demanding that, as a pre-condition to the tabulation of electoral votes at the Joint Session of Congress on Jan. 6, the electoral fraud charges are adjudicated on the merits.
  • Trump supporters should descend on Washington for unending peaceful protests through Jan. 6.
If, as a result of the courageous acts of the state lawmakers, neither candidate attains the required 270 electoral votes, the House will hold a “contingent election,” which Trump will win as each state gets one vote in that election and a majority of states (though not a majority of the representatives) are Republicans.

All these options are better than secession and violent civil unrest, if not outright civil war, any of which I fear could result if the voter fraud claims are never addressed on their merits.

Stephen B. Meister is a lawyer and an opinion writer. Twitter @StephenMeister. Opinions expressed here are his own, not his firm’s.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.