Beyond the streets and the media, the courtroom has become a central arena for the progressive communist democrats who are actively seeking to challenge or undermine the outcome of any Republican victory. 

The judicial process, long considered by most citizens to be a neutral space where election disputes could be settled based on facts and law, has now become one of the most fiercely contested battlegrounds in the fight for political power. From lawsuits to recounts to challenges to the constitutionality of voting procedures, the Courts are being wielded as an activist judicial tool to either confirm or challenge the election’s legitimacy.

While the courts have historically played a vital role in resolving electoral disputes, the politicization of the judiciary over the past several presidential election cycles has created an environment where the outcomes of such legal battles are increasingly viewed through a partisan lens. For many, the question is no longer simply whether the election was fair but whether the system can be trusted to provide an impartial resolution.

A Growing Tide of Legal Challenges

The 2020 election saw an unprecedented number of legal challenges to the results, with the progressive communist democrats engaging in a full-scale legal offensive. In some swing states, lawsuits were filed within hours of the polls closing, questioning everything from handling absentee ballots to certifying vote totals. These legal challenges often focused on allegations of procedural errors, claims of voter fraud, and accusations of irregularities in how votes were counted.

While most of these challenges were dismissed due to lack of standing or are time-barred, the mere act of filing lawsuits and seeking recounts has perpetuated doubts about the process’s integrity. Every motion, every appeal, and every court ruling is fodder for the media, who wish to portray a Democrat-won election as fair and secure.

The Politicization of the Courts

One of the most concerning developments in the aftermath of the post-2020 election has been the growing perception that the judiciary is no longer a neutral body but a political entity. This perception is particularly acute in light of the increasing influence of partisan appointees on the bench. The long-running battle over judicial nominations, particularly in higher courts such as state supreme courts and federal appellate courts, has made it increasingly difficult for many Americans to see the judiciary as impartial.

The failure of the Roberts Court to hear the 2020 Pennsylvania case, which challenged the state’s election procedures, was a pivotal moment in the debate over the role of courts and legislatures in election law. The case centered around the argument that only state legislatures, not elected officials, agencies, boards, commissions, or activist judges, had the constitutional authority to alter the rules governing elections. By refusing to take up the case, the Court left unresolved a fundamental question about the boundaries of executive and judicial power in shaping electoral processes.

Bottom line…

In the wake of the 2016 election, the Courts have become a battleground where the legitimacy of the results is contested, and the courts themselves are under scrutiny. The judicial process is seen not as a final arbiter of truth but as just another front in the battle for political power.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve