First: I think we are all owed an explanation as to who the "J Roberts" is who appears in the Epstein flight logs.
Second, I wrote back in 2015:
"It's pretty clear here that the SCOTUS is a corrupted institution that can't keep it's thinking straight and is hell bent on ruling on emotion rather than the law. Peeking at Alito's dissent I saw many references to other countries and the past, but not ONE mention of English common law that is the basis of common law in the US. At this point we can stop saying the US is a country based on the rule of law and say that it is ruled by popular opinion."
This was in reference to the decisions regarding the ACA as well as gay marriage ruling.
Our most recent example comes in response to challenges to the 2020 election. We mentioned that it is unlikely for SCOTUS to get involved, not because it cannot and should not, but because they do not have the stomach to do it. So here is Thomas on the matter of the changes to election law (at the prompting of the "Shadow Organization" spoken of in Time Magazine's recent article.
The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.
"inexpilicable"? I beg to differ.
You'll note that Thomas is outlining the very points I made months ago about Pennsylvania's changes to election practices. The MSM and social media say that such discussion is "white supremacy" and "incitement to violence" and perhaps "insurrection". Thomas shows it to be what it is:
Statement of fact.
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
Personally, I'm way past "respectful" given how blatant this lawlessness is.
And Alito:
They present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.
So since those of us asking the same question based on the constitution in regards to elections on what basis are those opposed to these questions operating from? The answer to that is the 'explicable" that perhaps evades Thomas but not me.