If a 1994 case is used as a precedent by the Supreme Court, then I believe Trump will be President for four more years. But that assumes none of the Supreme Court Justices are biased. And after yesterday, that is a valid concern.
Yesterday, Attorney Lin Wood (who is also trying an election case in the Supreme Court) made disturbing tweets calling for Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Breyer to “resign immediately“, alleging both justices were “anti-Trumpers.” Wood also alleged that during a phone conversation discussing Trump in 8/19… Justice Roberts said he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”
With those claims in mind, the Supreme Court’s recent actions raise concerns.
Powell filed emergency petitions for four cases to be heard immediately by the Supreme Court because time is of the essence. But according to Powell… two of those cases against Arizona and Wisconsin were “INEXPLICABLY rejected”, and the Court is “SLOW-walking” her other two cases against Michigan and Georgia.
Keep in mind that January 6th is the date that Congress will count the Electoral Votes to determine the outcome of the Presidential election – but the court has given Michigan and Georgia until Jan. 14th to issue responses. With the election of our President in question – it is puzzling why the Supreme Court would wait to hear Powell’s cases until AFTER Congress counts the votes to declare a winner.
But let’s hope Powell’s lawsuits will be judged without bias. If that is the case, then I believe history is on her (and the President’s) side… even if Biden is declared the winner on January 6th. Here’s why…
MARKS v STINSON is a 1994 case regarding a special election to fill an open State Senate seat in Pennsylvania. There’s many parallels between Powell’s cases and MARKS v. STINSON.
In MARKS v. STINSON, Republicans accused local election officials in Philadelphia of colluding with Democrats to illegally reduce the restrictions for handling, obtaining and subsequently casting absentee ballots. Marks claimed this was a violation of the Constitution because election laws could only be changed by the Legislature. Sound familiar?
When the polls closed on election night, Republican Bruce Marks was ahead of Democrat William Stinson by 564 votes – 19,691 to 19,127. However, after the 1,767 absentee ballots were counted and added to the totals, the result was flipped and Stinson was declared the winner 20,523 to 20,062. Sound familiar?
The County Board of Elections certified Stinson as the winner and he was subsequently sworn in as a Pennsylvania State Senator. But the story doesn’t end there.
Marks filed a lawsuit. The state courts slow rolled the process, and rejected the arguments that Marks made – all the while Stinson served as a PA State Senator. It took nearly four months for the case to be decided.
In the end, the election was invalidated and Stinson was removed from office. The court ordered that the state could either immediately hold a special election or wait eight months until the next election to fill the empty seat.
That is what should happen for the 2020 General Election in all of the swing states where massive election fraud and illegal activities took place. Invalidate the results and redo the election. But don’t use the voting machines that were allegedly manipulated. Follow the laws precisely. Allow proper and thorough oversight by representatives of both parties over of every aspect of the election process.
Based on the precedent of Marks v Stinson, that is the fair way to resolve who won the election. If that turns out to be the resolution for Powell’s cases – as it should be … then Trump would win in a landslide (again).
If you are interested, you can click here to review the summary/analysis of Marks v Stinson case. The parallels between that case and the 2020 General Election are startling.