Potus, on hearing the verdict: “NO WISDOM. NO COURAGE.”

I happeneed to be on twitter yesterday evening when the news arrived, and spread instantly everywhere: Scotus denied the Texas suit. I felt stunned, gobsmacked, shaken to the roots; and this, despite having had suspicions all along that some kind of technicality would derail this particular suit, so different than all the others. Why? Because success would have just been too easy; would have brought 62 elector votes into Trump camp and put him over the top automatically. Bingo. Done. Oh yah, there would have been riots, fury, etc.; we’re expecting that, no matter what “side” “wins.” But the turmoil wasn’t destined to end this quickly! See my astrology piece for this month and next. 

So I can only barely imagine what that Scotus blow must have felt like for those who really were counting on this suit to bring an end to the uncertainty that has held the whole world in suspension for the last five weeks.

I mean, geez! The Texas suit was just so clever! Coming out of left field; moving straight to the Supreme Court, and taking four swing states down at once by arguing in constitutional terms, with no need for evidence, proof, etc. So very different from all the other suits that must undergo the laborious process of moving up through local, state, district courts in order to reach the Supreme Court. There’s just not enough time! We all thought! And most of us still think.

Tbis morninbg I decided to pursue this further, via twitter.

Here’s what I noticed. First, this. Makes sense?

But then I wondered. What if even the Supreme Court justices are afraid for their lives, and the lives of their families, if they enter this political fray in any way. The American public is so intensely polarized, with Antifa and BLM threats so very obvious, that who in the public eye wouldn’t fear for their families? And yet, I imagine the Supremes do have security around themselves and their families. True?

Like many others, my brief flirtation with despair concerned the fact that it now appears that all three arms of the federal government are compromised, deep state corrupted.

Besides, do you have any idea just how much China has infiltrated our nation? Check this out.

Furthermore, as anyone who doesn’t watch the MSM knows, Hunter and “President-Elect” Joe Biden — along with how many other politicians? academics? technocrats? — are deeply entangled with China, and should be in prison.

But back to the issue at hand. Just prior to the Scotus decision, Juanita Broaddrick had tweeted:

There we are again. Back to the Constitution. And the three constitutionalist justices that Trump put on the court, agreed with the 7-2 decision to deny!

The legalities go over my head. What in hell is “standing”? What in hell is “judicially cognizable”? From the brief:

“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

From an attorney:

But then there’s this, see especially the Blompf1# Reply:

Not sure where I saw it now (I think here) but Dershowitz thinks that this suit was the best that can be done. That this court ruling will put the kabash on any success in the court system of rectifying the stolen election.

Flynn, however, begs to differ:

Basically, he’s saying that the dispute has to go back to the states. That there is a process that has to be followed. That the state legislatures need to decide. That We the People need to decide, not the court system. And  “that’s the way we want it to happen. That’s the way the Constitution was designed.” Furthermore, “the only date that matters is January 20, 2021, when on a scale of one to ten who’s to be inaugurated, I’d say it’s a ten, that it will be Donald Trump.”

Flynn, this morning at the Stop the Steal March, standing in front of the Supreme Court:

“OUR CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.”