Seems SCOTUS is “concerned” about being accused of being “political” — one explanation for why it would not take the case of “Stolen election, 2020”.
In his appearance on “Fox News Sunday” Justice Breyer gave a truly mealy-mouthed answer to Chris Wallace as to why they refused to hear the case. The story appears below our comment.
It seems to us, bottom line, that however well-founded the court’s ‘concern’ might be, the accusation is just as likely in the 2020 election if it hears the case or declines to — either way they can still be accused of playing politics, as it turns out now, by sustaining one side by refusing to hear petitioners). dlh
——————
Justice Breyer: Trump’s 2020 Election Case Did Not Meet ‘Normal Criteria’ for Supreme Court.
Wallace asks: In a video, former President Donald Trump said, “No judge has had the courage, including the Supreme Court — I am so disappointed in them — no judge, including the Supreme Court of the United States, has had the courage to allow it to be heard.”
Wallace than asked, “Why was that?”
Breyer said, “Why was it? Because they didn’t bring a case, I guess, that met the normal criteria for being heard. When we decide to take a case, there has to be four votes to take it, so I can’t go beyond that. What we do know is that there were not for (sic) votes to take it because it wasn’t taken. There are criteria, and if we don’t take a case, you know, the reason in all likelihood is that the criteria weren’t met.”
———————–
“in all likelihood … the criteria weren’t met.”? ????????????????
What does that mean?
This “Supreme Court Justice” doesn’t know why the Court did not take a case dealing with possibly the most important matter in American history…. the fraudulently elected president of the United States !!??
MAYBE the “NORMAL CRITERIA” wasn’t met??????
Did I read this right? Justice Breyer doesn’t know why but speculates that maybe the “normal criteria” wasn’t met!
What’s the “Normal Criteria”? If he doesn’t know for sure why the Court voted not to hear the case but ‘opines’ as how maybe it didn’t meet the “normal criteria”, one must wonder if Justice Breyer knows what the “normal criteria” is.
Did Justice Breyer vote? If he did, could he tell us if he voted not to accept?
If he did, could he tell us why he voted not to accept? And, if he so voted, was it because the case didn’t “meet the normal criteria”? And, if it was, he should surely be able to share with us ignorant ’non-lawyers’what the “normal criteria” is. dlh
———————–
This is the story from Fox News as related by Breibart News:
