Connect with us

The Swamp

TOTAL BETRAYAL: Supreme Court Strikes Down Kansas Law Requiring Identification to Vote

So much for the conservative judiciary.

Published

on

The Supreme Court has stomped out an attempt by the state of Kansas to revive voter identification laws, in another move that will further disenfranchise Republican efforts to retain senators in Georgia.

The law, which had been heavily promoted by former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach, would have required voters to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other proof of citizenship to be able to vote. This would have prevented illegal aliens from voting in the state of Kansas and shown the blue print for other states to adopt in order to prevent fraud.

Kansas District Court Chief Judge Julie Robinson had previously struck down the law in 2018 because she claimed it “disproportionately impacted duly qualified registration applicants, while only nominally preventing non-citizen voter registration.” The new supposedly conservative Supreme Court voted to re-affirm Robinson’s decision on Monday.

Trending: EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Email Shows How GOP Leaders Botched Election Ops for Trump in Key Battleground State

Big League Politics reported on the Supreme Court’s refusal to even consider the landmark Texas fraud case as the judiciary works in lockstep to enforce the color revolution coup to overthrow the Bill of Rights and Constitution:

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West is floating the idea of secession after the Supreme Court betrayed the people and dismissed a lawsuit against battleground states that engaged in grotesque fraud.

“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 congressman, have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law,” West said in a statement.

“Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic,” he continued.

This is when West essentially endorsed secession as a remedy to the broken republic where the justice system has been ravaged.

“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution,” West concluded. “The Texas GOP will always stand for the Constitution and rule of law even while others don’t.”

… The incredible disgrace that occurred during the election has mainstream conservatives wondering if secession is the solution.

With the “conservative” judiciary being such a disgrace, Republican constituents are having a hard time finding an excuse to circle the wagons around the GOP. The vote steal has shown that the swamp runs deeper than anyone could have dreamed.

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending