Will SCOTUS stand up this time?

 I believe the 2020 election was stolen. I am an engineer with many patents and successful product developments under my belt, and math is my natural talent. On the morning after election day, it was clear to me as it was to many that the statistical anomalies in the election results were way too significant and numerous to be simply dismissed.

Convictions have happened when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming to exceed the threshold of “beyond any reasonable doubt.” I know this because I was a juror in a criminal trial recently, and we rightly found the defendant guilty based on little circumstantial evidence offered by the victim that we could shoot no holes in, but found everything wrong with the defendant’s contrary yet more overwhelming circumstantial evidence. The smile on the judge’s face confirmed we had made the right decision and digging into the defendant’s criminal history after the trial I discovered the defendant was no stranger to this judge.

Many of you have also perhaps seen, or at least heard of Dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules, which exposes even more circumstantial evidence on the issue.

As most of you know, the Supreme Court declined to hear any of the 2020 election challenges put forth by Texas AG Ken Paxton and supported by 18 state attorneys general and 106 Republican members of Congress.

“The lawsuit sought to discard the presidential election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, four crucial states won by Mr Biden. Texas alleged that the results in those states were unlawful because of changes to voting procedures to help Americans cast their ballots during the coronavirus pandemic… But on Thursday, the four states in a filing asked the justices to reject the lawsuit, which they said had no legal grounds. The Supreme Court agreed. "Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in its ruling.”

How does a state not have a “cognizable interest” when it is clear that the outcome of the election would have a direct negative impact on the state(s) as we have seen, for example, with the massive unchecked illegal immigration into Texas and others because of Biden policies? Is the fact that 18 other state attorneys general supported the lawsuit a non-starter? What entity, or what circumstance would it have taken for SCOTUS to hear the case?

Admittedly, the challenges to the 2020 election were fragmented and not well organized. The thought of such a massive election fraud was beyond what we could have imagined, so we were not prepared. Then the unfolding of events of January 6 put a nail in the coffin by short-circuiting any attempt by Republicans to legitimately challenge the certification of the election, and states like Pennsylvania rightly argued that any case brought before the Supreme Court was moot because the state’s election results had already been certified. The Democrats won that time.

What we see now is that the Democrats have no viable candidate for President, and this is likely going to have a significant down-ballot effect on the Senate and House. Many have posited that it doesn’t matter because this is not the last time the Left will successfully steal the election. Maybe we don’t know how, exactly, but they did it once so it is all but a guarantee they will try it again.

I don’t have all the answers (none, in fact) how conservatives can move forward more swiftly, more effectively, more forcefully, and more convincingly with challenges to what we know is going to be another attempt at massive election theft. I am hopeful conservative legal minds have learned their lesson from 2020 and are prepared to do battle in the State courts and SCOTUS, if necessary. This time, I hope and pray the majority of justices agree to hear it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/07/will_scotus_stand_up_this_time.html