ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE: A SOLOMONIC SCOTUS STEPS UP?

Let’s be clear:  the chances that the Supreme Court will do anything but punt relative to any of the election fraud claims still pending before it, are the proverbial ‘slim to none’.

The totalitarian left has leveraged the January 6 Reichstag fire into a compelled unity of rage against Donald Trump for inciting riots (even though evidence keeps accumulating that the assault on the Capitol was planned and set up and began being executed before Trump even finished the speech said to have caused the riots).   It’s breathtaking to behold, as just about everyone inside the Beltway and in corporate America are getting on their knees to bow to the leftist line as fast and as visibly as humanly possible.   So it’s a longshot of longshots to hope the nine Justices of the Supreme Court will act any differently in the current environment, especially if Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives adds the radioactive label of impeachment to the picture.

The obvious likelihood is a dismissal of the pending cases as moot once Biden is inaugurated.

But one can hope.  Adults throughout the Beltway ought to stop pretending the question of a stolen election is going to go away, even with the whipped-up purging frenzy that is targeting anyone who mentions even the slightest doubt.   The election was stolen.  The evidence is in plain sight for at least as long as Big Tech will allow it to be.

The only question is whether enough censorship and threats of violence can make it stick…or whether threats of violence to make it stick will be matched by escalating counter-threats, until the whole thing spills over into an uncontrollable mess.

Maybe there’s a way out.  In an atmosphere charged with hate and violence, try something drawn from a premise of love of country, rather than hatred of personalities.

Remember that the Berlin Wall came down soon after people marched in the streets—carrying candles, singing hymns and praying.  Famously, a member of the Central Committee of the East German government with responsibility to control the people admitted:

We had planned for everything. We were prepared for everything. But not for candles and prayers.

The American people have already been taking to the streets of heartland cities and towns in opposition to the enforcement of a stolen election.  They are being mischaracterized as armed, deranged and violent mobs.  They are in fact overwhelmingly comprised of peaceful American patriots who love their country and are sickened by what is happening to it.

Assuming all nine justices at SCOTUS love America—and we want to believe they do, no matter what their individual philosophies—they have the power to make a decision, even after inauguration day, that does not decide whether Trump or Biden won on November 3rd, 2020.  They can order a new one-office election within the next 90 days, order the rules for voting in that election, and order how the votes shall be tabulated.

Yes, they can.

And here’s why it just might accomplish a just result and stave off massive violence: it appeals to the same quality that King Solomon appealed to when he used the device of offering to ‘split the baby’ to flush out the identity of the baby’s true mother—it was the true love of a mother for her child that could not tolerate killing it, and caused her to step forward to prevent the King from doing so.

We believe the overwhelming majority of Americans love America.  They do not want to see her split apart or destroyed.  Hyper elements on the left and right (and globalists in general) might want that split; we believe the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t.

SCOTUS does not have to decide who is President; they have only to judge that upon actual review of the claims and exhibits and affidavits, there is too much evidence of election fraud, voter fraud and ballot fraud to permit Americans to have high confidence that the November 3rd election result was honest.  That’s a judgment which doesn’t require a backwards forensic audit of the entirety of the November 3rd election; they could just watch and listen to Russ Ramsland in this detailed review of evidence already in the public domain.

SCOTUS has only to decide that the Constitution guarantees the American people free and fair elections, and the election on November 3rd didn’t meet that standard, and fell short to such a material degree that the Republic cannot tolerate four years of an election result that a huge segment of the people (more than half?) do not accept as legitimate.

____________________

To be realistic, let’s also stipulate that no Constitutional lawyer—no matter how partisan politically to the left or right—would assert there is any reading of the Constitution or any precedent that suggests there is unambiguous legal authority for ordering a do-over of the November 3rd 2020 presidential election.

But that’s just another way of saying America finds herself in uncharted, ‘unprecedented’ territory.   Maybe unprecedented territory calls for an unprecedented remedy.

There’s actually a reasonable legal argument that a do-over is not really unprecedented in the sense that for centuries a primary equitable remedy for fraud consists of the unwinding or rescission of the action/contract that was induced by fraud.   A do-over would essentially be an unwinding or rescission of the election result of November 3rd, leaving whoever is in office in limbo until a free and fair election is held.

A do-over would make some Biden supporters livid or, more accurately, would make the Deep State and Pravda media livid.  But for those who genuinely believe Biden won with 80 million votes, the do-over ought to present no danger of Biden losing.  In the current environment, they would assume Biden would win a do-over with far more than 80 million votes.

Besides, within the mass of Biden voters, there are many who love America more than they care about Joe Biden.  They don’t want America torn apart by reason of their friends and family on the other side who don’t accept the honesty of the result.

A do-over might leave Trump supporters still livid about what they believe to be a stolen election, but not nearly as livid as they currently are.  They believe their guy won a landslide the first time; they will believe he will win another.

And as with many Biden voters, there are also within the mass of Trump voters many who love America more than they care about Donald Trump.  They don’t want America torn apart by reason of their friends and family on the other side, many of whom honestly believe Biden won on the theory that there was a nationwide rejection of the unacceptably indecorous behavior of Donald Trump.

____________________

Simple rules for the do-over (and if SCOTUS can define trimesters for purposes of abortion, they can set rules for a do-over election):

  • Paper ballots printed by a single federal source; anti-counterfeiting technologies deployed.
  • A one office election: Trump vs. Biden
  • Ballots counted manually, with observers from both parties present
  • No early voting; no mail-in voting. Absentee ballots—only after notarized application confirming necessity.
  • Voter photo-ID matched to voter rolls, required.
  • Precincts guarded on election day by the US military.
  • Observers from both sides given full access to observe vote counting, and within a distance that allows meaningful observation.
  • All completed ballots retained and stored indefinitely if recounts prove necessary, and stored a minimum of 22 months whether or not recounts prove necessary.
  • Electoral College rules apply; not a national majority vote.
  • Pre-election stipulation by both Biden and Trump to accept the election results.

The buzz about the military’s potential involvement as ‘precinct guards’ tends to turn hysterical over the question of whether such a role amounts to ‘martial law’ or ‘partial’ martial law.  But hysteria aside, keeping the peace on the do-over election day is a long way from general martial law.

__________________

No one would claim that a do-over election would guarantee an end to the national contentiousness.  But there is a reasonable chance it would allow the froth of warlike upheaval to dissipate.

Additionally, the interlude between now and the conclusion of the vote-tallying in the do-over election is fraught with a very, very high level of danger.  The world will not agree to stand still while Americans sort out who their President is.

So a do-over election is not a perfect solution.

But the reality is that America does not have any perfect peaceful choices for the path forward.  The ruling class may want to believe that an inauguration of Joe Biden will finally put the lid on American unrest and cause everyone to get back to work.  But the Beltway isn’t America, and the path of submission and silence in the face of perceived national injustice doesn’t fit with the American character.

Americans deserve a chance to preserve their country instead of watching it get violently split apart.  A Solomonic SCOTUS can order a do-over special election that could accomplish just that.

Eric Georgatos blogs at America Can We Talk?

Please follow and like us:

4 thoughts on “ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE: A SOLOMONIC SCOTUS STEPS UP?”

  1. It’s very idealistic to suggest the Supreme Court justices, as corrupt as the majority has proven to be by rejecting the Texas lawsuit on specious grounds of “lack of standing,” would demand a new election. As fetching a dream as that might be, their New World Order owners probably wouldn’t stand for such with their talons wrapped so firmly around our neck. One expects either Trump to step up to the plate with the Insurrection Act or our whole country to go to hell in a handbasket, but nothing in between. Ultimately only the people can save ourselves — just like always. So non-violent peace and love riots might work — or the other kind, eighty million strong.

    moderated
  2. I guess its no big deal for 20,000 military to stand guard in the Capitol but its farfetched for the military to stand guard at the voting polls to ensure honesty? Are Americans really that fearful and dumb? So now we have this divide.
    Yes, we do need reasonable voting rules to provide secure voting.

    In Australia the vote counting monitors stand directly behind the vote tabulators and can SEE everything that happens.
    In America the vote counting monitors were told to stand 10 feet or more from the Tabulation Tables. Some were even told to go outside and look through the windows. What nonsense. No wonder we have this mess today.

    moderated
    1. Don, it’s one thing to have troops in place in the nation’s capitol. Essentially, the President is the governor of the federal district and can order troops deployed. But, only governors can order troops to guard voting places–actually only state police are really needed, given the small number of vote centers–but .it’s obvious governors in the seven swing states did everything they could to not allow free and fair election. So, why would they position law enforcement to guard the election centers.

      As for the main article, I have to simply state that, as much as it pains me to say this, Professor, the election is over. The media will repeat the mantra over and over a million times that “there was no election fraud” and the courts and legislatures will do nothing and the vice will continue to tighten on the American people. Do you think they’re going to allow free and fair elections next time?

      moderated

Leave a Reply