About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

7 Replies to “Brad Johnson discusses the testimony claiming SCOTUS refused Texas election fraud suit due to political bias”

    • If not in person, it was a Zoom call. And reaction would have been the same. Staffers, one or more, outside of his ‘Room’ would have heard it.

      I am more disappointed in the other judges who fell under his terror spell.

  1. (Here is a different story about what happened, I don’t know which is correct. It may be that there is some truth in both stories. While they are reported to have not met in person their could have been heated conversations and the reports about worry/fear of riots and Roberts hating Trump out of loyalty to Bush II may both be right. No matter why the didn’t take the case Brad is right they said that the law doesn’t matter in this [and in future cases} there will be times when they rule according to what they think or feel rather then what the law says. Of the six supposedly conservative/constructionist Justices on the Court four of them betrayed the Nation and everyone in it when they broke their oath of office.)

    Report: SCOTUS clashed bitterly over whether to hear Texas election fraud case *UPDATE*
    By LU Staff December 18, 2020

    The speaker in the video below is a member of Texas’s State Republican Executive Committee. The information he is imparting is secondhand. He is citing remarks by an unidentified U.S. Supreme Court staffer, who claims to have heard the justices screaming at one another during a closed-door session in which they discussed the merits of hearing the Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states. The high court ultimately rejected hearing the case on procedural grounds, insisting that Texas lacked standing to bring it. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the court wrote in an unsigned ruling.

    According to the staffer, the Justices normally exercise decorum in closed-door meetings. This meeting was a rarity in that the Justices could be “heard screaming through the walls.” The reported bone of contention was the concern that deciding to hear the case might precipitate riots, with Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly having said, “I don’t give a [expletive deleted] about Bush v. Gore. At that time we didn’t have riots.”

    *UPDATE* In approaching this report, we attempted to exercise extraordinary caution, as reflected by the disclaimers at the outset. Apparently we fell short of the mark, as LU contributor and attorney Hans Bader notes in an email. He writes:

    This reported clash never occurred because there was no meeting among the justices at the time. Thanks to the coronavirus, the Supreme Court Justices don’t really have “closed-door meeting[s]” anymore. They work from home, mostly. So there wasn’t any meeting at which this supposed clash could occur.
    In addition, lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court — such as Ted Frank — tell me that no such clash occurred.

    Since the SREC member in the video acknowledges that there are no phones or computers in the rooms where justices meet, we are inclined to accept the position that this clash never occurred.

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/12/18/report-scotus-clashed-bitterly-over-whether-to-hear-texas-election-fraud-case-fearing-more-riots/

    • If not in person, it was a Zoom call. And reaction would have been the same. Staffers, one or more, outside of his ‘Room’ would have heard it.

      Outside of his ‘Room’: AT HOME. They all have their own office room in their home. Maybe that was the case. An employee, cook or cleaner or whatever…

      I am more disappointed in the other judges who fell under his spell. Something happened. There is an affidavit.

      • I know what you mean, I am also disappointed in the person who put out the “debunking” info, they had to know that the “debunking” would be easy to tear apart.

  2. This is all BS. If the person heard it in the home of Justice Roberts, then they should say so. Otherwise, this is the kinda story that gives the story tellers a bad name. And Brad should look into it before fulminating.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*