During the Texas presidential electors legislative session there was a debate over an amendment to wording where the Texas House would rebuke the Supreme Court of the United States for “moral cowardice” in not allowing the Texas challenge to be heard.
During the amendment debate Texas Congressman Matt Patrick (CD-32) put into the ¹record a report from a claimed “Supreme Court staffer” about an internal debate taking place within the high court where justices were arguing the reasons for not allowing the Texas election challenge to take place. As outlined by Patrick Chief Justice Roberts was worried about riots in the streets if the court heard the Texas arguments and evidence.
The exact statement comes at 01:32:31 of the debate video [prompted just hit play]
.
¹To be fair – It should be noted the claim comes with no specific citation for further review or analysis; and considering the heightened sense of concern over the election, more details should be requested before making assumptions about the described incident.
Wow! Bravo, Matt Patrick. Actually, that’s not just moral cowardice (God will judge that). There’s something here for law enforcers to judge. If Roberts is alleged to have said that he is taking into account an irrelevant matter, it is outside the record, and he is using it to interfere with upholding the US Constitution. I believe that is not only a violation of his oath, but an extremely dangerous and destructive violation. We have a Constitutional Democratic Republic, and this evidently fraudulent election negates the vote &, thus, negates democracy. Roberts is under oath because the Constitution is countermajoritarian–it does not respect majorities, it respects fundamental god-given rights. If one person loses the right to vote, that is a fundamental right. You don’t have to have a majority of people losing votes, one should be enough. More obviously, however, democracy is based on the vote. Without the vote 1/3 of the U.S. government (i.e. the “Democratic” part) is gone. All of the witnesses and justices are duty bound, and were sworn under Oath, to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign domestic. Furthermore, they made an oath that they do not even had “mental reservations” about upholding the Constitution. John Roberts should have articles of impeachment filed against him for that illegal behavior. The chief witnesses are the judges in the room that he talked to. There needs to be an impeachment trial. Those judges are under oath and are duty bound to root out (in this case rat each other out) on official oath violations! That is a moral and legal duty. By the way, I think the term is “arbiter”, not “arbitrator”.