All it Took for Treason to Triumph was for the Supreme Court To Do Nothing!

The recent Supreme Court rejection of the Wisconsin lawsuit on Monday is one more indication that the justices primarily have not socially distanced themselves from the toxic mainstream media. This in turn, is indicative that only “proper people” would properly base “proper” decisions upon the “proper” standards of the contemporary dominant media mogul empire. This would include the media outlets who control the media elites of the donor class of the GOP and the Never Trumper aristocracy. What else would the common folk imagine that the Supreme Court justices swallow each day as their minimum daily requirement of “all the news that’s fit to print (or post).” It is not hard to jump to the assumption that the Supreme Court had sought out the bunker occupied by former Senator Joe Biden when facing difficult decisions.

Texas lawsuit last year was the “handwriting on the wall” of the future that would befall the United States

Like the Pennsylvania case before it, the justices saw no value in cracking such a hard nut as election fraud. As seriously disappointing as these two remaining cases before them, the rejection of the Texas lawsuit last year was the “handwriting on the wall” of the future that would befall the United States. Joe Biden, without knowing completely what he was doing, confirmed that the nation would be in store for a “Dark Winter.” With cowardice as the chosen path, as opposed to courage to actually protect and defend the Constitution, the majority of justices who chose to do nothing will truly be remembered by accurate history as a body of previously respected and trusted people, who by their ignorance of the urgency for their need to act courageously, or by their own cowardice, failed to act responsibly for the sake of the Republic. Last year, as the Supreme Court rejected the Texas lawsuit, all kinds of comments from constitutional scholars and wanna-be constitutional experts were made, but despite the predictions and the prophecies, the Supreme Court now enabled a fraudulent-ridden and illegitimate election in 2020 to stand as a precedent in American history. The most notable characteristic of the high court in a time in which their country most needed them was one of inaction or indecision. And, although it is misattributed a great deal, the old adage applies: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. In this case treason has triumphed. The United States of America will never be the same nation from this point if we do not have fair and honest elections. We no longer have a Free Republic. What remains in our nation is a shell of what the Founders have created. The various factions who could care less for the Judeo-Christian values at the heart of our nation, or the fundamental principles and ideals embedded in the foundation of our nation, have secured control of the federal government as well as several state governments. And, the conspirators are crowing about it. I recently promoted Molly Ball's article and explained that “the Time piece should be read by people who love the United States to get an idea of just how twisted and inverted such people’s conception of justice in this nation has become. I also said Ball’s article was pure propaganda. The intent seemed to be to persuade readers that “it was reasonable for the Marxist sympathizers and Communists to complete the coup that the Progressive lawmakers could not finish.”

---

Dred Scott decision

Ball’s article reveals simply the “tip of the iceberg” rather than the entire realm of those Democrat-Leftist-Marxist-Progressive intellectuals and organizers who hated President Trump, who worked in the shadows to undermine election integrity by “fortifying” or by “saving” the election in their own minds. However, a deeper question would be: Just how far would Marxist sympathizers, Communists, and globalist Never-Trumpers go to undermine an election? Would a faction of such truly determined conspirators threaten the well-being or the very lives of justices on the Supreme Court? Have justices on the Supreme Court been “advised” to make decisions with certain outcomes? As a matter of history, yes. One famous incident occurred at the time of the Dred Scott decision. James Buchanan influenced the votes of justices on the Supreme Court. Recent sources indicate that Buchanan was quite pro-actively involved in the decision-making process of the Court a number of months leading up to his own inauguration as president-elect. At the time, southern Democrats (possibly including much of the northern Party as well) were aligned against any effort that would lead to abolition of slavery. The Supreme Court was handily in the pocket of the “Democratic” Party, and that is why the infamous Dred Scott decision was easy to pass. Yet, James Buchanan helped to expand the effect of the decision. James Buchanan was one of those northern Democrats, according to some current historians, motivated to rid the nation of the Republican Party as they were enemies to the free exercise of slavery across the nation. In addition, he seems to have been motivated to single-handedly putting an end to the divisiveness over the potential expansion of slavery into the northern territories. According to historians who examine his political shrewdness, he saw an opportunity in the Dred Scott case coming to a climax in the Supreme Court just prior to his inauguration as POTUS. Ignoring the constitutional concept of “Separation of Powers,” Buchanan wrote to a friend, Justice John Catron, in January of 1857 and made an overt suggestion that a much broader or more pervasive decision was wise. This initial exchange was followed by Justice Catron, a Southern Democrat, suggesting that Buchanan persuade a northern justice to also support the Southern justices on the Supreme Court, otherwise it would look like a sectional decision, and they would not be able to write a more pervasive judgment on Dred Scott. Buchanan had nurtured the hope that a broad-based decision would protect the expansion of slavery into the other northern and western territories, and put the contentiousness over slavery to rest, as well as totally undermining the Republicans. Buchanan was able to influence his fellow Pennsylvanian, Justice Robert Grier, since he had promoted Grier’s appointment to the Court.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas bore the brunt of what his colleagues seemed to be afraid of. He was one of three demonstrating genuine courage to protect and defend the constitution

According to a 2004 book by Jean Baker, president-elect Buchanan did write to Grier and persuaded the justice that a “comprehensive judgment that moved beyond the particulars of Dred Scott’s individual status into that of all black Americans—slave and free, North and South...” could be used “as a turning point for a triumphant program of national harmony.” Grier’s vote added to the Supreme Court's Southern majority and made the decision appear to the public as nothing like a North-South divisive issue. The high court’s 7-2 vote against the slave, who was relegated to a piece of property, did provide a much more far-reaching judgment, additionally rendering the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roger Taney, himself a slave owner, in his opinion on the case, wrote that Blacks “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." There is other evidence of the breach of the Separation of Powers among the three branches of the federal government, but could there still be tampering with the decisions of the Supreme Court? Use common sense; do not eat the poison the MSM propagates on a daily basis. The extensive evidence would not be received. Chief Justice Taney’s Court was controlled by a majority of slave owners with the ‘excuse’ that they were bigots and racists. In an incredible twist of true justice, the black member of the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas bore the brunt of what his colleagues seemed to be afraid of. He was one of three demonstrating genuine courage to protect and defend the constitution, despite the recent rejections. What will history reflect about the “excuse” of Chief Justice John Roberts' Court? So far, anemic legalese cannot cloak cowardice.