Would it shock you that when the novel impeachment of Citizen Donald Trump begins in the Senate tomorrow that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or his delegate might come to the Senate, canceling his previous decision not to appear, and simply say:
“I declare these proceedings to be lawless” i.e., “not based on law”, and then just get up and leave, as the television cameras scour the assembly to see how each delegation; the Democrat managers, and the Senate body, will react.
All Senator McConnell would have to do is tell his senators to heed the Chief Justice’s admonition, and leave the chamber empty of at least 46 of the Republicans, but I’d bet all 50 would depart.
Then, if the Democrats choose to proceed anyway, it will tell the high court about the general lawless nature of the new Democrat administration which they may not have taken into account in December when they the chance to nip this in the bud. Since then they have been made aware of various types of new legislation that verges on madness, including “lawless” punishments of free citizens by Media and corporations for banning any public speech speaking of the November election as fraudulent.
In November, I wrote several pieces in anticipation of what I believed then would be the Supreme Court looking at several states, the most easy-to-prove wayward states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, accounting for 52 electoral votes, enough to flip the election. I suggested once done (where at least three senate seats were also in the balance) the Court could then begin of setting rules for various types of voting irregularities that could, once proved, call for, even at this late date, either new elections, or a state-by-state recount based on known factual misconduct.
I wrote at least five or six, back to back, the most pertinent, “What is the Standard Proof to Show Voter Fraud”, “Near Term Strategy, MI, PA, GA” and “Can SCOTUS throw out Dominion-Smartmatic and Mail-in Votes in their Entirety?”
This last piece was based on notion that even without a formal recount, but shone enough factual proof to prove that the systems employed cannot, as a matter of law, give a reliable representation of the voters’ intent within the 90%-or-better reliability standard. None of these could be able to guarantee even 50%..especially since it can be shown that thousands of votes could be “managed” through various technical ways and changed from as far away as Germany. Such systems are inherently “lawless”.
Sadly the High Court demurred…without hearing any factual evidence…thus opening itself, especially the six “conservatives”, to all sorts of condemnation by fair-minded voters, even making itself partly responsible for that assemblage of tens to thousands of people who came to Washington to voice their disapproval at the Nation’s Capitol on January 6; the violence that erupted there by as-yet unknown perpetrators still having not one scintilla of evidence introduced into court to prove any guilt on any party.
Of all those people arrested, booked, and even charged (we’re told) only one is facing trial, with volumes of evidence ready to introduce, and that is the instigator-in-chief, Donald Trump who now stands before a second impeachment charge and a jury where only political considers, not facts, matter.
I don’t know whether John Roberts knew what kind of can of worms he was opening when he is alleged to have shouted down other justices who wanted to hear some of those appeals in December, 2020, but three of those cases will now begin to be heard, PA, GA, and MI, beginning 19 February, only 11 days from now.
This time, and for the first time, evidence will be presented.
Only what can and will the Supreme Court do with it?
SCOTUS still has the power to undo everything that has taken place November 3rd-thru-January 21 with several options as to how that might be done. And yes, violence may be the outcome. But if the Court responds lawless actions in the proper context now, that violence may not result in civil war, as Roger B Taney’s decision in Dred Scott did in 1857.