SCOTUS Should Not Have Ducked the Texas Case: To Do So Is Unconstitutional

SCOTUS Should Not Have Ducked the Texas Case: To Do So Is Unconstitutional. By Martin Armstrong.

They need to go back to the Supreme Court and argue that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it created discretion to hear cases when the Supreme Court is the ONLY court created by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that “The Supreme Court alone possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it.” Stevenson v Fain, 195 US 165, 167 (1904)….

The jurisdiction of this Court was created by the Constitution. It requires an amendment to the constitution to alter that jurisdiction, not a statute passed by Congress. Therefore, the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional.

The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court …

Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional for it violates their oath to defend the constitution when they have the discretion to not hear cases. …

When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men. …

The Supreme Court refusal to hear a case that is squarely within its jurisdiction has condemned the nation to [violence as the only solution].

They had an obligation to rule. Even a ruling against Trump would calm the situation to some degree. But the refusal to rule means there is no rule of law, which is the cornerstone of civilization.

Where else can the President get a hearing?

Too many conservative judges chickened out, denying the President his day in Court and denying his voters justice.