Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /bitnami/wordpress/wp-content/themes/the-newspaper/theme-framework/theme-style/function/template-functions.php on line 673

The same Supreme Court that refused cases brought by Donald Trump and various states regarding alleged 2020 election fraud found time this past week to argue over how “a” should be read in a 1996 immigration-related act.
The case, Niz-Chavez vs. Garland, concerned how the government sends deportation notices to nonresidents who have been living in the United States. 
The nation’s highest court was divided over whether a requirement in the 1996 statute to send “a notice” meant one communication or a communication strung out in several communications, as the Federal government has been doing.
The need for such a question to reach and take up the time of the highest court in the land might strike average Americans as bizarre. 
In the aftermath of the controversial November 4th, 2020 election, the Supreme Court rejected several lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign and states on technical grounds. The Court’s refusal to hear the merits of the cases contributed to the frustration of millions of voters who believe they were disenfranchised by the widespread reports and indications of illegal voting, mail-in ballot fraud, changes in laws not authorized by state legislatures, and other issues.
That frustration boiled over during a mostly peaceful protest on 6 January 2021 that drew hundreds of thousands to Washington, D.C.
Since then, the Biden administration has used the protest, which briefly saw protesters occupy the Capitol building, to smear, surveil, and even arrest political opposition as “domestic terrorists.”
During arguments in the immigration-related case, the Court did show at least some self-awareness of how ridiculous their deliberating would appear to Americans who might be paying attention. Justice Neil Gorsuch said:
“To an ordinary reader—both in 1996 and today—‘a’ notice would seem to suggest just that: ‘a’ single document containing the required information, not a mishmash of pieces with some assembly required…
Admittedly, a lot here turns on a small word. In the view of some, too much… But that’s not how the law is written, and the dissent never explains what authority might allow us to undertake the statutory rearranging it advocates.”
In addition to shirking hearing the merits of 2020 election fraud cases, the Supreme Court also has yet to hear any cases involving the use of the U.S. Postal service ICOP program to spy on Americans or significant, recent abuses of power trampling the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms of Americans.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content