By CHRIS SOMMERFELDTNEW YORK DAILY NEWS |DEC 11, 2020 AT 7:10 PM

It’s the final nail in President Trump’s election coffin.

The Supreme Court on Friday tossed out a long-shot lawsuit to overturn Joe Biden’s election, effectively leaving Trump without any further legal recourse in his baseless bid to subvert American democracy.

Seven of the top court’s members, including recently Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined together in ruling that the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton should be dismissed because it failed to show “a judicially cognizable interest” for invalidating all election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, two of the court’s other conservatives, were the only dissenters in writing they would’ve liked to hear Paxton’s lawsuit.

However, Alito and Thomas wrote they would not have granted any “other relief” in the action, meaning they wouldn’t have entertained Paxton’s extraordinary request to throw out the four states’ 62 electoral votes for Biden in favor of having local Republican legislators appoint ones who support Trump.

The Electoral College will meet on Monday to formally certify Biden’s election as the 46th president of the United States.

President Donald J. Trump
President Donald J. Trump (OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP/Getty Images)

Earlier this week, Trump called Paxton’s lawsuit “the big one” and urged his supporters to rally behind the Texas attorney general, who’s reportedly under FBI investigation over allegations of bribery.

A few hours before the Supreme Court ruling landed, Trump still tried to sound optimistic.

“If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!” he tweeted from the White House.

Paxton’s improbable lawsuit — which received official backing from Trump and 126 GOP members of Congress — recycled the outgoing president’s debunked and false claims about Democratic and Republican officials in the four battleground states conspiring to swing the election for Biden through mass voter fraud.

Like Trump, Paxton provided no evidence for the paranoid claims, but rather suggested this year’s pandemic-related surge in mail-in voting made the vote “tainted.”

Joyce Bergeron of St. Cloud, Fla., and other activists demonstrate their support for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court in Washington on Friday.
Joyce Bergeron of St. Cloud, Fla., and other activists demonstrate their support for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court in Washington on Friday. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Trump’s campaign has suffered numerous court setbacks as part of his aggressive attempt to overturn Biden’s 306-232 Electoral College victory.

But the Supreme Court’s refusal to consider Paxton’s request is the most stinging one for Trump, who said ahead of the election that he wanted Barrett seated before voters headed to the polls in order to ensure she would get a say on any legal challenges to the vote.

Neither Barrett nor Trump’s two other Supreme Court appointees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, noted a dissent in the Friday ruling.

Michael Gwin, a spokesman for Biden, praised the Supreme Court for “decisively and speedily” tossing Paxton’s “attack on the democratic process.”

“This is no surprise — dozens of judges, election officials from both parties and Trump’s own Attorney General have dismissed his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election,” Gwin said. “President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20.”

Even some congressional Republicans lauded the top court for putting an end to Trump’s election battle.

“Every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court — including all 3 of President Trump’s picks — closed the book on the nonsense,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

But Trump will likely continue to press his at times bizarre case for overturning the election.

Many of his allies have already refocused their attention on Jan. 6, when both chambers of Congress will meet in a joint session to count the Electoral College votes.

Some Republican House members have pledged to challenge the Electoral College count during the joint session, though any such attempts invariably would not be successful without Democratic support.

Other Trump supporters are proposing an even more undemocratic route.

“If the Supreme Court can’t save our Republic, then where is the Military?” Diamond and Silk, a couple of Trump’s most ardent social media supporters, tweeted from their joint account after the Supreme Court ruling.


THIS WILL JUST BE THE BEGINNING - NOT FINISHED YET!!


COPYRIGHTS

Copy & Paste lenken øverst for Yandex oversettelse til Norsk.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >

GHOST ARCHIVE - 06 DEC 2020

The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehaviour acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.

Commentary:

Administrator

HUMAN SYNTHESIS

All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.

The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Human-Synthesis articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites. Human-Synthesis contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.