The Supreme Court has ended the rule of law

As you all know, earlier today the Supreme Court issued a brief ruling announcing that it would not hear the lawsuit filed by Texas against what appears to be massive election fraud.

If you're a Democrat, socialist, communist or liberal you're delighted.  You tell yourself there could not possibly have been significant election fraud, but in any case you don't care if there was, because your party won.  But for Americans who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution, you need to know what the court's ruling means.

First some needed background:  as everyone knows, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation.  Even though courts are not supposed to MAKE law, their decrees--rulings--have the force of law.  If the court allows something, then whatever that is is treated AS IF it the law permits it.  

And you need to know that if the Supreme Court refuses to "take" a case, refusal is interpreted as the Court saying that whatever was decided by a lower court in that case is the legally proper decision.

Second:  While it's true that many lower courts have refused to hear various cases claiming election fraud, every one of those courts refused to hear those cases them without hearing open-court evidence supporting those claims.

That's worth repeating:  EVERY court that has dismissed the election-fraud cases--including the U.S. Supreme Court--has done so without ever hearing the evidence.  Moreover, no court order has ever declared there was no evidence, or too little evidence, or that it wasn't persuasive.  Instead, every single case has been declined on procedural grounds.

Third:  When one state sues another, the Constitution of the United States explicitly states that the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction." That is, such cases go directly to the Supreme Court, instead of having to be filed in a lower court.  Although the court has often tried to dodge that Constitutional order, whining that a given case (one it doesn't want to deal with) should be resolved by a lesser court, the Constitution is absolutely clear.  (If you wanna look it up yourself, it's in Article III section 2.)

Fourth: in its VERY brief order refusing to take the case of massive election fraud, the court claimed that it was declining to hear Texas's lawsuit "for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution."

"Standing" is a principle that says courts will only hear a case if you've been damaged.  For example, if your friend was defrauded and you were to sue on your friend's behalf, courts won't even let that go to trial because you aren't the injured party.

So with the Supreme Court refusing even to hear even one bit of evidence in the case, it means the court is implicitly claiming that citizens of states that voted for a candidate are NOT injured if election fraud in other states swings the election to the other candidate.

Let me repeat that:  If the court refuses to hear the Texas case, they're claiming NO ONE in the entire country has the right to sue for massive election fraud.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Even if one party has video evidence of corrupt election workers repeatedly feeding the same stack of ballots into scanners, or refusing to match signatures on mail-in ballots, and has a thousand sworn affidavits from people in the room who watched it happen, the court says "No citizen of any other state was damaged, so we refuse to even hear the evidence." 

What that means is that no future election fraud can ever be prosecuted, because today's ruling will be cited as precedent.

(Of course the court may well change its mind if Republicans ever steal an election.)

After the Democrat-ruled supreme court of Pennsylvania refused to hear lawsuits alleging election fraud in that state, no resident of that state could bring such a case, since the state's supreme court had closed that door.  Courts in Michigan and Wisconsin have similarly refused to hear cases in those states.  So Texas filed suit because it claimed vote fraud in the four defendant states deprived citizens of Texas of a fair election.

Unless you believe stealing an election doesn't harm the citizens of states won by Trump, it's hard to see how the U.S. Supreme Court could reasonably RULE that Texas lacked the legal standing to sue on behalf of its citizens.

If the court's utter horse-shit ruling--that no one in the country has the legal standing to sue for a stolen election--is allowed to stand (and what court can reversed it?), Democrats can steal elections in Dem-ruled states without fear of being prosecuted, since the courts in those states will refuse to hear any lawsuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court will claim no other state can sue the corrupt ones because of "lack of standing."

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has ended the rule of law.