Please note this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a deprivation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.
On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “deprivation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.
In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a deprivation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
CERTIORARI GRANTED
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.
Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.
In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT
The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “deprivation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this deprivation of rights by not hearing the case.
In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.
Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a deprivation of rights under color of law.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
