Moral cowardice

Via daughter Jaime:

The following is my transcript in case the original goes away:

It was written by someone is a current staffer for one of the Supreme Court Justices…

I’ll just describe the report to you the report which I just read and you can make of it what you will.

He said that the Justices they always do [sic] went into a closed room to discuss, you know, cases they are taking or to debate. There’s no phones, no computers, no nothing, no one else is in the room except for the nine Justices.

It’s typically very civil. They usually don’t hear any sound. They just debate what they are doing.

But when the Texas case was brought up, he said he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up.

And the reason, the words that were heard through the wall when Justice Thomas and Alito were citing Bush versus Gore, from John Roberts were, “I don’t give a [blank] about that case. I don’t want to hear about it. At that time we didn’t have riots!”

So what he was saying, was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing. And I’m sorry, but That. Is. Moral. Cowardice.

And we, in the SREC, I’m a SRC member, we put those words in very specifically because the charge of the Supreme Court is to openly be our final arbitrator, our final line of defense, for right and wrong. And they did not do their duty.

So I think we should leave these words in because I want to send a strong message them.

See also 1:32:31 (Its Texas Congressman Matt Patrick Texas Cong. Dist. 32) for more context.

This is, literally, hearsay evidence. But if true, SCOTUS is sending a very clear message of how to get your way if the law and evidence isn’t on your side. The message will be heard loud and clear and the lesson learned will have dire long term consequences.

Update: This is probably false, at least in part. They have been meeting via video conferencing for months.

H/T to https://twitter.com/AdamPiersen/status/1339804928479473665

It’s possible something like this happened on a video call, but we have no evidence of that.

11 thoughts on “Moral cowardice

  1. I did not think of it as moral cowardice, but it’s not that shocking either. We only pretend the balance scales of justice are calibrated and true.

    This revelation just adds another nail into the coffin of 2020 election. I can only conclude that the election was stolen and our justice system aided and abetted.

    • When Roe v Wade was decided WAAAAAAy back in 1972, there were, not rioters, but vocal and loud protesters outside demanding that the law regarding when an abortion was allowed be nationalized. You wouldn’t need to be Kreskin or Jeanne Dixon to know which way the decision would go, and lawyers who have waded (sorry) through the decision, even ones I know who think that Biden and Harris are kind of conservative for their tastes, admit that it is poorly written, with hardly any precedent law and mostly a bootstrapping discussion of scientism in order to have some semblance of a reason for the decision.

      In so many other cases, where the Supremes do take the case, they work very hard to find a non-justiciable Political Question to justify not ruling.

      I’m not surprised they are afraid of riots. The quietness of the BLM/Antifa blackshirts hangs over the nation like in the late 20’s and early 30’s. Hindenberg gave the National Socialists a place at the table, ostensibly thinking that if they were somehow invested in the nation they would behave. Brawling in the streets did end, as did the legal status of various political parties, including the Communist Party and the Social Democrats, and other parties you wouldn’t think were threats to social order.
      And once they had a seat at the table, we see how quickly the Reichstag burned and the enabling acts were enacted, and then, as the saying goes, it was off to the races.

      Their fear of riots shouldn’t be an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities, but Riots plus the threat of having six more doctrinaire leftists on the court scares the middle justices, as we see here.

      • As Joe says, this is hearsay. But it is very believable, given Roberts past history and his more recent trajectory. The position of the 3 wimps is harder to explain. The case was about having a fair and constitutional election. Do these things and Trump is reelected. A second term for Trump precludes court packing and any riots would be short-lived and probably decisively put down. Letting the steal stand, makes court-packing more likely due to discouragement of R voters in Georgia and raises the risk of some sort of kinetic action (though not riots) or secessionist action on the part of the Right.

        • Oh, yes, it is hearsay. But being humans, we take hearsay and process it with other data. It may or may not be true, but based on past behavior (Roe v Wade, et. al.), it is not hard to believe.
          We can look at behavior and compare it to words to decide if reports of behavior are consistent or inconsistent with something said. I think we can do that in this case and since we know they’ve had their figurative figure in the political wind, in the past, It isn’t a stretch to conclude this report is likely true.

  2. If true (and while believable it’s not proven), then he’s admitting that the way to power here in America is fraud and violent riots. Period, full stop. He’s admitting that the noble experiment in republican government is done. So he should either kill himself now, because the law is nothing more than a fiction, or he should kill himself knowing he let it happen on his watch, or e should kill himself now because he’s compromised and a traitor. So…. yeah.

  3. Pingback: Quote of the day—Sean D Sorrentino | The View From North Central Idaho

  4. Doesn’t matter. SCOTUS didn’t take the case. The most important case in history I might add. The one for which they were given original jurisdiction. For the republic hangs on those scales.
    Bigus Macus is correct. Wither Roberts shouted the court down or not is irrelevant.
    SCOTUS proved Bigus correct in not shouting back.
    They proved what most of America has known for years. Government is a failed institution.

  5. And here I thought we had Supreme Court decision on our side.

    Going to be interesting in February when Biden bans the ownership of all semi-auto rifles via executive order with a mandatory turn in and SCOTUS won’t stop it. Won’t it, Joe?

Comments are closed.