Commentary: Courts’ Inaction Tell Voters Democrat Election Fraud Is ‘Too Big to Fail’

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
by Karin McQuillan

 

The courts have spoken, one after another. Some 74 million Americans have been denied our day in court.  The Democrats’ crime of stealing a presidential election is too big to fail.

Our play-it-safe judges don’t want to venture into these enormous seas, full of sharks, without precedent. They want to say in the safe spaces of the familiar. Stealing an election for city council is familiar enough to be overturned by law. Stealing a presidential election by wholesale fraud is above the law.

One might think that somehow our laws are written too narrowly to catch the whale of Democrat fraud in the election, but for one thing: the declarations from the bench that it is unthinkable to “upend an election.” Our judges tell us that ruling fraudulent ballots invalid would “disenfranchise” millions of voters. These are political statements. They are pusillanimous statements. They are not legal statements.

Upending an election has no precedent, we are told. But stealing a presidential election on this scale has no precedent, either.  The courts are saying that if election crimes are so consequential, they require a politically consequential act to be redressed, then no redress is allowed.

That doesn’t even make sense.

We are told there is no redress because the problem is political.

Yes, stealing an election is political. It is also illegal. It is also unconstitutional.

The judges’ angry rebukes of the Republican plaintiffs are bogus by the very terms they use. If our judges are not willing to “disenfranchise” fraudulent and illegal votes, then they are disenfranchising the entire country.

We are not getting the candidate who won the election. But the Supreme Court tells us our state attorneys have no standing to protect our votes.

The evidence will not be heard in court. We cannot see the evidence formally submitted, discovery allowed, or 500 sworn testimonies of wrongdoing examined. Because none of us have the legal right to protest this heinous crime. Because we should have gone to court before the crime was committed, not after. Now is too late.

This is a failure of our justice system on a massive scale.

It is the wrong time or the wrong place or the wrong person to be heard. But the evidence is still there.

When those charged with defense of our laws will not defend them, the fraud will become institutionalized. There will be no remedy after the fact. Democrat-controlled states will be safe havens for election rules that bake in the outcome. Chinese corruption and cyberwarfare in our election system will be hardened, not corrected.

We will not have another fair election in our country. There is no “next time.”

– – –

Karin McQuillan served in the Peace Corps in West Africa, was a clinical social worker and psychotherapist, and is now a writer and regular contributor to American Thinker and American Greatness.
Photo “Inside SCOTUS” by Phil Roeder CC2.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact [email protected].

Related posts

2 Thoughts to “Commentary: Courts’ Inaction Tell Voters Democrat Election Fraud Is ‘Too Big to Fail’”

  1. Roger

    I couldn’t agree more, but it looks like nothing will be done by the courts, and if liberals control both houses and the presidency we stand a good chance of becoming the United States of Venezuela.

  2. Deplorable Bay Stater

    We shouldn’t be too surprised at this outcome. The combination of corruption and cowardice that has created this problem has been apparent for decades, but we have failed to do anything about it. We stopped being a “nation of laws” at lest 50 years ago, probably even longer. One might think it would be the job of the news media to expose this rot, but they apparently like things the way they are, which makes them just as corrupt as the judicial system.

Comments