On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show, The Supreme Court has institutionalized chaos and lawlessness. Just forty minutes after the last brief was filed the US Supreme Court denied the Pennsylvania case brought by Representative Mike Kelly and Congressional Candidate Sean Parnell. Similar to Justice Owen Roberts who served during President FDR’s administration, this Supreme Court is fearful of the media chaos. This Court could have stood up before the election compelling states to adhere to state election laws under the state and federal Constitutions. But of course, they did not. The campaign can still make a future request for certiorari. In effect, and as of now, any state supreme court can now legislate from the bench because of their cowardice to uphold the federal constitution. Then, there would be no coronavirus vaccine but for President Trump, operation warp speed and his administration. The nuance of his management style would be the topic of books if he were a Democrat. But the media will do anything to prop up Joe Biden’s Administration as it aims to be the most radical leftist government in American history. Later, the Georgia Secretary of State is a coward and has agreed to a deal with Stacy Abrams to significantly weaken the signature requirements that the state’s election law calls for. Afterward, China has made inroads with many Democrats. among them Rep. Eric Swalwell and based on a year-long investigation from Axios, Swalwell has some embarrassing spy problems fitting the mold of a useful idiot for China.
THIS IS FROM:
Just The News
Texas files lawsuit directly to Supreme Court challenging election results in four states
Newsbusters
NYT’s Greenhouse’s Fact-Free Flaying of Justice Barrett’s ‘Grievance Conservatism’
Axios
Suspected Chinese spy targeted California politicians
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Mandel Ngan
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
As the gaggle of legal analysts go on cable TV and sit at their computers and write their blogs. You don’t have to be a legal scholar to figure out what’s taking place in this country right now. An order was issued 40 minutes after the last brief was filed by the United States Supreme Court. In other words, that had already made up its mind in the case of Pennsylvania. We talked about at length as we have these other cases, but Pennsylvania in particular. He said the application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the court is denied. That’s it. Now, why did they do that? And so this will be the speculation that starts today and goes on for the rest of time. Now, I’m going to tell you why I think this took place, this was a open and shut case. This was a black letter law case. But I think the Supreme Court justices now, I think they’re very fearful. I think they’re fearful the way Justice Alito and Roberts became fearful after FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. And then the Supreme Court would issue rulings five to four or five to four or five to four over and over again with Owen Roberts. Switching in support of Ph.D. programs before that, they were knocking them down because FDR threatened to pack the court. He wanted to add six seats, six. This court knows full well excuse me, this court knows full well that if Joe Biden’s president. And if the Democrats win two seats. In Georgia. And there’s really no way to stop the Democrats. From actually packing the court, FDR couldn’t do it, but they could. And I think this is a constant. In their thinking. That these justices sat in their conference room. And had a long talk, not so much about the law in the Constitution. But of our politics and the political ramifications of what would happen to their institution, which is now being threatened. And I think they made a. Terrible decision, and I think history will judge it that way, it’s not a matter of them getting involved in politics. They’re always involved in politics. What will happen now is any state Supreme Court and any state legislature. Can change election laws. Lawlessly, whether they violate their own constitution or whether they violate Article two of the Constitution and they know the United States Supreme Court will do nothing. And so this will create further chaos and further division in this country. Because they made, in my view, a fundamentally and historically devastating decision to duck. Now, that doesn’t mean the petitioners can’t file for a writ of certiorari. Remember, this was up on an emergency appeal for an injunction. It doesn’t mean the petitioners can’t file for a writ of certiorari for the entire case to be heard. I don’t know what they’re going to do. But I suspect it’s likely the same result. But these justices. Are fearful. They’re scared. Some of them are ideological. We know the Democrats on the court. Stand strongly for their activism. We know that Roberts has flipped. But apparently the other five. We’re not going to get involved, you see, because. The likelihood of changing the results of the election and then will be accused of interfering and you can imagine the editorial pages across the country and the commentary and the legal analysts, they read it all. They watch it all. They hear it all. And they know. That this would be used against them. So rather than stand up. And put an end to the chaos, you know, early on what this court could have done under John Roberts. Is two simple comments, No. One. The states must comply with Article two of the Constitution. Meaning state Supreme Court, state governors, state election boards, state secretaries of state are to change election laws that are used, at least in part. To select electors, period. Period. And then. The court could have easily said. That when a state supreme court or a state legislature fails to comply. Of course, it’s a federal question, we will address it. So follow article to. And in doing so, comply with the state and federal constitutions, that’s all this court had to do. It could have done it five weeks ago. It had a case presented to it and it didn’t do it. The commonwealth judge. Is the hero in this entire matter, the appellate court in Pennsylvania. Got it right. Because that judge was not driven by politics, she was not driven by a result oriented decision, she was fearless. In her defense. Of the rule of law. So what the U.S. Supreme Court has done, lawyers will tell you no, but effectively what it has done is it’s given a rubber stamp to what the state Supreme Court did and to what the legislature did when it violated the Constitution. Then October 2019, and that has an important reason, 2019, because it was prior to the presidential election, they didn’t know in 2018, they didn’t do in 2017, 2019. Twenty nineteen, so state legislatures are effectively free to do whatever they want, but the most powerful force in the selection now of our electors are the state Supreme Court’s. They can rewrite the laws. They can defy the federal constitution. Whereas Justice Rehnquist and that court put the Florida court in a box and said, no, you don’t get to do this. Chief Justice Roberts and his court said, oh, yes, you do. Many people are very excited. About the case brought by the state of Texas, which is being joined by other states, understand Louisiana, perhaps Florida, and they’re suing other states like Pennsylvania and Georgia. What makes you think? That just because the U.S. Supreme Court is taking their case. That the result will be a just result. They just had an opportunity. Just had an opportunity. To address a black letter law case, as we call it, you had some legal analysts like it, National Review. They were hanging on latches, which was preposterous from day one. If other legal analysts who are trying to figure out what’s Alito up to? In the end. In the end, all the filings, all the briefing, all the deadlines were meaningless, pointless, I’m not even clear why Alito did what he did, to be perfectly honest with you. I don’t know why he did what he did. I don’t know why he needed briefing, particularly if they’re going to issue this. This order 40 minutes after. The last brief was filed. That means they’d already made up their mind, they weren’t going to get involved. This Supreme Court will get involved in a whole lot of stuff. It’ll rewrite laws like it did the Obamacare law. That when it comes to the biggest of federal questions, the selection of a president or vice president. The obvious violations of Article two by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The obvious violations by the state legislature of the Pennsylvania Constitution and its effect on the choosing of electors. If it’s not going to take that case. And do justice for the American people, I don’t see it taking any other. I could be wrong. I hope I am. Please understand. All this court had to do early on. Say, follow Article two, all states must follow Article two. And they must play. Comply with all constitutions, state and federal. In the following Article two, Tallat had to say. I think they’re scared to death. I think they’re very worried about what’s going to happen. I think they think we’re going to lose Georgia. I think they think Biden will be sworn in. And I think they think. That any step they take. To enforce the federal constitution against a lawless Democrat Party, lawless state supreme courts and so forth, acting on behalf of the Biden campaign, acting on behalf of the Democrat Party, I think they think. That that will further instigate and motivate actions taking against the Supreme Court and perhaps the judiciary. That’s my view. It’s a terrible, terrible state of affairs. A sad state of affairs. And they do this in one sentence. Because they can’t justify what they did. What are they going to say? What are they going to say? The commonwealth judge was exactly right. And she’s the only one of all the judges who’s had the guts to stand up. She would be a Supreme Court justice because apparently Amy Coney Barrett wasn’t able to. Our heroes on the bench weren’t able to. So you’re not going to find me and I never have defending lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, what I opposed was efforts. To change the number of justices on the court, but I’ve always supported, as I told you over and over when we were talking about my book, Men in Black, when we’re talking about my book, The Liberty Amendments for six months. 14 year limits on Supreme Court justices. You see, we get caught up in sometimes defending the indefensible. Chapter four of the Liberty Amendments, an amendment to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and supermajority legislative override by Congress and the state legislatures. So I believe in term limits for Supreme Court justices, I do not believe in threatening the interest. Portion of the court by packing it, and I believe those threats have resonated in the hallways of the Supreme Court. Of course they were denied. No, no, of course not. But if you’re going to reject this emergency injunctive relief request. At least have the intellectual integrity to explain it. To explain it. They don’t explain it. They leave it to the legal analysts and the bloggers to try and figure it out. I’m just not sanguine that the Texas case is going to reach any better result as a result of the things I’m explaining to you. For the most part, and God, do I pray I’m wrong? I think this court. He’s hiding under the proverbial table. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
But the court knows how significant a case like this is that the American people deserve more than a one sentence response. I understand it’s nine justices of different ideological viewpoints, but you would think that the American people deserve a little bit more instead of legal analysts and commentators and so forth telling you what they think the justices meant. Why don’t the justices just tell us? Now, that said. I’m hearing now that the petitioners are going to go for a full writ of certiorari here. Keep in mind the court could have treated it as that if it chose to. It did not. It did not. The court is taking the Texas case as it must, because now you have a conflict among states and I strongly support that litigation because I think it’s right on. It’s the audience I’m concerned about, the justices. That’s what I’m concerned about. This was a very, very powerful case and it still is. And I think the petitioners are going to make one more run at it. I’m told the Texas case is a very, very powerful case and overlaps some of the issues that were raised in the Pennsylvania case. We shall see. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
You know, one of the things that has kind of been stuck in the back of my head that’s been gnawing at me. Is and this isn’t the president’s responsibility, it’s the campaign’s responsibility. Why were the lawyers two years ago, Mr. Producer, and a year ago when all this litigation was going on, all these changes were taking place? I mean, I understand some of the some of them were out there. It is it is kind of odd to me, very strange, one of the things we haven’t figured out here. You know, Republicans play by the rules. Republican appointed judges. Play by the rules or they lurch to the left. When Republican appointed judges are justices, follow the law, follow their constitution, federal or state, they’re accused of being right wingers and political, even though they’re neither. This is another area where we’ve allowed the left. To control the narrative. To control the narrative. Now, what the court has done here is. Institutionalised chaos and lawlessness. That’s what it’s done. Because now it is said in effect. Well, Aliu. By not acting, we will allow state legislatures to do whatever the hell they want, plenary power now even means lawless power. And if a state supreme court goes rogue, we will reverse course from Bush versus Gore. And we’re not going to get involved, even though the impact reaches all the way into Congress on January 6th and the selection of electors. And as for the American people, we’re going to leave them dumbfounded. We’re going to leave all the analysts to analyze. We’re going to leave all the writers to write, all the pontificators to pontificate. And all the bloggers to blog. All have to read nine minds. Because we’re not going to give you any indication on why we’ve done what we’ve done not. So what the court has done so far in this case, it is, it has. Not technically, legally, but effectively. And trust me when I tell you, the majority on the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania feel this, it has it has effectively supported what that court did, the court, because not only did it intercede, it didn’t even explain itself. And it has told future state legislatures, not just in Pennsylvania, that you are free to do whatever you want. That Article two means you can do whatever you want in Article two means nothing when the word legislatures use because the state Supreme Court can do whatever it wants. We just don’t want anything to do with this. We don’t want to be attacked by Linda Greenhouse, the retired but still writing hack leftist. In The New York Times writes about the Supreme Court. We don’t want to be attacked by her. We don’t want to be brutalized in the editorial pages, we don’t and we don’t want to be hurt. If the election results are upheld and they take the Senate, we just. You know, we don’t want to be damaged by any of this. But you are damaged by this. So they when I’m hearing and I could be wrong, is that the petitioners will go for the full writ of certiorari. I just don’t want to give you a false hope. You know, I got a couple of these sites, my buddy over at Right Scoop and a couple of the others March really putting it down. Mark, Mark’s not doing anything. My goal in life, my mission behind this microphone is to advocate for liberty in this republic. That’s what I do. That’s what I do, and if we have institutional problems, which is why I wrote a book called Men in Black and have a chapter in the Liberty Amendments about how to affect the the Supreme Court, then we need to talk about it. You have the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. That threw out a tremendously important case by a four to three vote, the three dissenters said, let’s take it up and said no, start at the lowest level of the courts, trying to slow them down procedurally. When they have a truly substantive case. You have a substantive case that was just filed in Georgia, where they have pointed out tens of thousands of potentially fraudulent votes. Why did they do it so late? Because it takes time. To match the voters. With voting data and information about their ages, about whether they live in a particular state, whether they’re alive, it takes time. And most of the courts that have been involved in these cases, the judges do not want to get involved, period. It’s just easier not to. And so we have a serious problem. And I’m not going to pretend otherwise. The case that is brought by Texas is a very, very good case, just like the case that was brought in Pennsylvania and in fact, one of the scholars. Who had written me and others about this fellow by the name of Nate Lewin, who is a brilliant. Supreme Court advocate in many respects, so wonderful man. It’s an idea that had been circulating. And it gives you immediate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court because you have a conflict among the states, there is no lower court that can take that federal or state. So the Supreme Court’s taking it up. But what I’m trying to explain to you as a lawyer, that doesn’t mean they’re going to rule for Texas. It means they’re taking it up. We shall see. I’m in favor of charging the Hill. I really am. Because what’s taken place is so corrupt, it’s so corrupt, it’s unbelievable to me, it’s unbelievable to me. That so many of us who speak out, so many who are involved in litigation. We’re trying to right these wrongs, are trying to find out exactly what took place after being shot in the back. I feel sorry for them. Very serious people, very intelligent people who don’t agree with what all these lawyers say, I’m not talking about all the lawyers. He got serious law firms involved, serious lawyers involved. You’ve got serious scholars involved. I heard our friend Hiroto on Fox declare that. All scholars thought the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would fail all scholars. And why would all scholars think it would fail? You know what the answer is out there? Because they don’t want to get involved, the court, they don’t want to get involved in court. Is that. A defensible position, ladies and gentlemen, you don’t want to get involved. Then why are you on the Supreme Court? And so by not getting involved in issuing a one sentence. Order, order and pending case. Forty minutes after the last brief was filed with the Supreme Court said is. So be it. We do not care. About what took place in Pennsylvania. We know what took place in Pennsylvania, it’s been briefed over and over, and we’ve got amicus briefs, we got all kinds of stuff here. We know what the legislature did. We know what the Supreme Court there did, undermining the circuit, the appellate court. We know all these things. But none of us moves us. To do anything, despite the federal questions, despite the consequences, this will have precedential value. They may sit there and think it doesn’t because they actually haven’t written opinion, but it does. This is heard throughout the state courts, this is heard throughout the state legislature’s. And you can mark my words tonight. That this is going to have. An impact down the road, a significant impact. And the failure of John Roberts and the others. And Kavanagh, quite frankly, early on to take up the Article two case, which I guess is still sitting there. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violating Article two and undermining the state legislature, just that, failing to take that up and address it. They could have really put this genie back in the bottle. Was a disaster. Absolute disaster in our Texas and the other states, joining Texas and suing these states are saying is look. And I heard them say today. All these things that have gone on in these states, unconstitutional and so forth. These electors shouldn’t be certified. These electors in these other states shouldn’t be certified, and this is my concern, that isn’t exactly appropriate argument. But if this court is too cowardly and fails to threaten to step in on one state. I just pray to God, but I don’t think the results are going to be much different when they’re swing five or six states. Time will tell. I want to urge them on I want to urge them not fight, I want to urge them to require the United States Supreme Court to do something. Even if it does. The case needs to be made and needs to be made to the American people. That everything is in our own hands, you cannot count on these institutions any longer. We have to count on ourselves. We see what’s taken place the last almost year. The fascistic conduct of governors and mayors. The destructive conduct against our kids by these teachers unions and the Democrat Party supporters. The same party, the same people that would destroy our immigration system, that would attack our cops, would undermine our military, that would give voice to attacks on our history and our founding fathers. The idea that they wouldn’t touch our election system is preposterous, and that’s what they’ve done. Not a single. Justice had the guts to stand up, not one. There’s no dissent here, not one. They stood together. They stood together. And when we want the petitioners file their writ. The states sued the other states. And we hope. In the course of a few days. The majority on that court. Again, it’s what’s gained its perspective well, stand up, I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
By the way, this vaccine for these vaccines have been reading articles about this all day long and the media. Either never mentioned Trump or they trash the man. This president deserves a ticker tape parade. He deserves a ticker tape parade. We’ve never seen anything like this. No nation, not this nation. The bureaucracy at the FDA, the bureaucracy. On top of which, Falchi sits in the NIH and HHS is massive, it’s loaded with red tape. This president cut through all that without harming in any respect, the health reviews and the safety reviews. And the reason why he has to talk about what his administration did is because he’ll never get a fair shake. And I want to talk about this next hour and I want to talk about how they’re trying to set the stage, the media, the propaganda arm for bureaucrats and the Democrat Party. How they’re trying to set the stage. If Joe Biden screws up and he will. He’s a screw up from the day was born. And the idealogues with whom he surrounds himself, most of whom have experienced nothing but being ideologues. That if they have problems. They’re trying to lay the foundation that they’re going to blame it on, quote unquote, the ex president Trump. That’s what The New York Times and The Washington Post are up to right now. The extraordinary nature. Of what’s been accomplished with this vaccine. It’s just this president. This president, despite the naysayers in the media, despite this so-called experts, despite Falchi and the others, despite them saying it couldn’t be done, you realize? People are going to stop being vaccinated within 10 months of this virus hitting our shores. Do you know the average time it takes to develop a vaccine? And I looked at this going way back, it’s 10 years now, some have been done as soon as five years. Never 10 months. Never 10 months, so Donald Trump, his administration project warp speed, is going to save millions of millions of people in America and throughout the world. Not masks. Not finger cuts. The vaccines and the therapeutics, we had nothing 10 months ago, we didn’t have enough masks. And Biden and Obama, they left us with no PCP’s shortages of bed, shortages of ventilators and on and on and on, and they talk about Trump. Trump not only had to fill the gap, he had to fix what so many of these governors destroyed, like Cuomo and Murphy, Whitman and Newsom, Pritzker and all. In many cases, they did exactly the opposite of what they should have done. I want to talk about this more generally when we return.