Republican Official Claims Chief Justice
Roberts Nixed Texas Election Lawsuit Over
Fear Of Riots (Video)
American Lookout,
by
Mike LaChance
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
12/17/2020 8:53:54 PM
A Republican Elector from Texas named Matt Patrick told a very interesting story this week.According to Patrick, the reason the Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit brought by Texas over the 2020 election is that Chief Justice Roberts was concerned about riots.The story Patrick is telling is third party, so take from it what you will, but here’s the thing. It’s very easy to believe.RedState has details:Did Chief Justice John Roberts Really Scream at Conservative Justices Over the Texas Challenge to the 2020 Elections
Reply 1 - Posted by:
smsnod 12/17/2020 8:59:53 PM (No. 635072)
obama told him that. obama's got something on him.
We've known that since the ACA decision.
That's who's pulling Roberts strings.
35 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
justavoter 12/17/2020 9:01:06 PM (No. 635074)
Pure hatred for PDT is the reason the SC turned down. Pure and simple.
21 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Urgent Fury 12/17/2020 9:08:18 PM (No. 635077)
This is something some supposed "clerk" posted on Reddit. Even if true, Roberts screaming at them made them turn down the case?!?!
18 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 12/17/2020 9:09:06 PM (No. 635078)
This is accurate. Last Friday, a SCOTUS court clerk who overheard every word of the justices yelling and shouting at each other from down the hall had reported to Reddit.com that Roberts indeed told the junior justices to stand down and that the SCOTUS would refuse to hear the case because Roberts feared massive rioting despite opinions from Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch to the contrary. I don't guess the three Justices were best of buddies with Roberts after the closed door meeting had concluded. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett probably had to duck under the meeting table.
19 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Knotwyrkin 12/17/2020 9:29:03 PM (No. 635084)
Is that the same John Roberts that flew on Epstein's jet, and went to Epstein's island with Horndog Clinton? Boy, can't imagine what they have on him, what could it be?!?!?!?
26 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
columba 12/17/2020 9:43:45 PM (No. 635089)
I read about this on Sunday morning 9:00 AM (Dec 13). After returning from Church, I looked for it again and found nothing. No mention, no Media, no nothing. I figured it had been (yknow) quashed. Now I see it again and it is the same. It is easy to believe.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
chumley 12/17/2020 9:46:07 PM (No. 635093)
One of Soros boys showed him some candid snapshots of that wacky vacation on Epstein's island. I guess thats better than using Reid's exercise machine.
12 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
davew 12/17/2020 9:46:58 PM (No. 635096)
"Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality which guarantees all others." - Winston Churchill
16 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
LonestarM3 12/17/2020 9:52:37 PM (No. 635103)
While it is true enough that John Roberts had repeatedly proven to be a sheep in wolf's clothing (not a typo) as Chief Justice, I find it hard to believe the rumor going around. Think this started with a relatively unknown radio talk show host who says he got a phone call from someone clerking for a justice who was eavesdropping outside the door. Claimed Roberts told the two newest justices to shut up, he would tell them how to vote, and claimed Kavanaugh came out with a smirk on his face. I find it hard to believe he would say that, and impossible to imagine that the two newest members would submit to it.
Maybe, but just doesn't ring true for several reasons. Among them that this is, from the point of view of SC members, the most important case in the Court's history, even beyond Marbury v Madison, which established principle of judicial review.
If the election fraud goes unexamined by the court, and if the apparent ongoing fraudulent efforts in Georgia succeed, it very likely will result in the end of the Republic and the end of the Court as a legitimate tribunal.
If the SC passes on dealing with it, no matter what the outcome the Court will be held in contempt by a majority of Americans for years, if not forever. As contemptible as the effect of Dred Scott v. Sanford!
I want to believe that they will follow the Constitution in a crisis this dire. If I understand it correctly, in a original jurisdiction case such as this, the SC will not be ruling on the decision of an inferior court, but on the evidence of the case itself. Also, the decision will be based not on "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "by a preponderance of evidence."
No pun intended, but in this matter there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to a degree that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
14 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
wilarrbie 12/17/2020 9:58:50 PM (No. 635109)
I thought those riots were 'mostly peaceful'. He backs down from a mountain of evidence of fraud amounting to destroying the very foundation of all we hold sacred because a bunch of thugs will break things and burn a few businesses? This is not about his fears, it's about OUR NATION! Something stinks! What exactly did he do that has him so frightened of personal consequences?
19 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
nina584 12/17/2020 10:05:10 PM (No. 635114)
If it is him in the Lolita express impeach him
14 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
rochow 12/17/2020 10:12:19 PM (No. 635122)
Still makes you wonder why Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and the new dame were so quiet. They should be ashamed of themselves!!
16 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
stablemoney 12/17/2020 10:34:14 PM (No. 635130)
It only took 4 justices to get the Texas case heard. They did not need Roberts. The 2 conservatives that did not join with Alito and Thomas should explain their actions.
19 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
PostAway 12/17/2020 11:02:03 PM (No. 635140)
#12, the “dame”? Are we in a Mickey Spillane novel? Maybe we can call Sam Spade and ask him to drive his ragtop over to the SCOTUS Jane’s joint. The pretty one - not the two dykes. Talk to the broad and her main squeeze. Find out dope on the Roberts palooka. Maybe get on the blower and call the fuzz. One way or another we’ll get the goods and send ‘em all down the river to do some time in the can, the gray bar hotel, the big house. We ain’t finishin’ this job until the fat lady sings. Got it?
18 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Mauigirl 12/17/2020 11:28:25 PM (No. 635159)
Most sophisticated LDotters, and there are SO many of them that issue comments here, would never refer to Amy Coney Barrett as a 'dame' when they know she should correctly be referred to as a 'broad'.
24 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
smokincol 12/17/2020 11:51:21 PM (No. 635169)
I read about the yelling episode in the cloak room or one of the private rooms the supremes have to themselves someplace but can't remember where. roberts was useless since day one and who appointed him? bush the younger, another oxygen thief if there ever was one.
9 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
ldb51 12/18/2020 1:08:26 AM (No. 635204)
Even if we take the excuse at face value, I have to say the CJ shows a lack of maturity and historical awareness, and definitely no love of country, if he prefers to cave to the Left in the face of what they represent, for fear of their reprisals against the public and property. Good God, we know that's a primary tactic of the Left, and always has been, because they know that the first instinct of the mass of people is always to run from the threat to peace and security if given the option. However, letting everyone continue to "have a nice day" is sometimes simply NOT worth the price the country, its citizens and its principles must pay to pacify the mob and keep the lid on. We have been living in state of apprehension over what the Left wants to do to us, our livelihoods, and our futures for TOO LONG already! We know their intentions, but we just keep hoping they will magically morph into more intelligent, moral and reasonable beings...but it's a state of mind with them, and giving them what they want is NOT going to bring anything but the worst. They know what they want, and it isn't pretty. If the riots are to come, better to get them out in the open where they can be decisively crushed by law enforcement, the leaders destroyed and actual peace restored! The Devil is NEVER your friend...Grow up!
13 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DCGIRL 12/18/2020 5:14:11 AM (No. 635241)
Hey, Justice Roberts I have some news for your, there is going to be riots no matter which way it goes. Just do the right thing you idiot.
14 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 12/18/2020 8:38:48 AM (No. 635337)
Message to Chief Justice there's going to blood coming soon whether you act or not. Dismissing the Texas case was wrong, you coward, you stepped over the Constitution over this fraud decision. It's going to get worse so act.
5 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
lakerman1 12/18/2020 8:54:19 AM (No. 635352)
##13, the Texas case was asking the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction, and thus, hold an actual trial. And that would require 5 votes to go to trial, I think.
But I'm not an attorney, so if one is reading this, correct me if I'm wrong.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
jasmine 12/18/2020 9:17:18 AM (No. 635378)
If he expected riots for taking the case, isn't that all the more reason to do so?
I thought the "hecklers veto" was to be ignored.
Furthermore, the threat of destructive rioting seems like a small price to pay, when the alternative puts the loser in the White House.
3 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
cheeflo 12/18/2020 10:33:41 AM (No. 635472)
It is not the responsibility of SCOTUS to try to prevent civil unrest. That is for the states and law enforcement to manage. There was rioting all summer as an intimidation tactic and if true, Roberts has just let the criminals know that their tactics work and they can employ them again with impunity.
By refusing to acknowledge that widespread fraud in a national election is possible, SCOTUS has ensured that it can succeed.
1 person likes this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Strike3 12/18/2020 10:53:53 AM (No. 635499)
#14, Lawrence Sanders would be proud of you.
I would rather have Donald Trump in the Oval Office with the expected rioting than Joe/Kamala without it. DJT will handle the tantrums in a completely different way this time around - and so will we.
3 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
cheeflo 12/20/2020 10:04:20 AM (No. 637071)
#13 — I am wondering if the “junior” justices voted with Roberts out of some kind of professional deference or hierarchy. I don’t know why a closed group like SCOTUS would be immune to “office politics.”
The one thing I never figured on was SCOTUS declining to defend the Constitution.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)