With the brilliant RNC convention closed and the great marathon of our Presidential election entering the final sprint to the finish, American voters face a potential storm that, if not addressed early, has the potential to destroy our country.

This sentence is written much more in sorrow than anger; if the Democrats, including their media peanut gallery, manage to bring enough confusion and uncertainty to the election results, resolution of the election the may go to the US Supreme Court -- and that is very dangerous. In creating a huge mail-in electoral mess and then through cunning and media cheerleading, if the Democrats manage to get Chief Justice John Roberts involved in determining who won the election, such a move may lead to significant and dangerous violence.

Failed President Candidate Hillary Clinton telegraphed just that political strategy.

Clinton conceded defeat on the night of the election in 2016 but said the shift to mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic means it could take longer to know the winner in November.

She said this year’s Election Day results might point to Trump having a narrow advantage. But in that case, Clinton said, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out.”

Remember the infamous “hanging chad” dispute in Florida in the 2000 Bush/ Gore election went to the Supreme Court for resolution; thus a precedent was established.

American history tells us the Supreme Court is fallible in times when great anger and hatred is sweeping the land. It happened in 1857 with The Dred Scott decision.

Before the tragedy of our Civil War, the Supreme Court made a horrendous ruling leading directly to that bloody conflict:

Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”

If the past is prologue, now fast forward to the political behavior of Chief Justice John Roberts.

First, he reached a very strange legal opinion in keeping Obama Care alive until President Trump was elected and then began to undo Justices Roberts’s bad decision.

Offical portrait (cropped)

Americans then had one of the more bizarre moments in American Political Theater with President Trump’s bogus Impeachment “Trial” in the US Senate.  A fair reading of the transcript shows the Chief Justice putting his thumb on the scales of justice by letting the Democrat House impeachments managers engage in over the top, hyperbolic, full on perjury by making  outlandish claims.

Finally, history will not be kind to John Roberts and his abdication of responsibility of failing to address the greatest American political crime ever perpetrated. His egregious abdication of responsibility by going into deep cover “who me?” while an historic fraud was perpetuated on his court is very damning.  

Readers of American Thinker saw that over a year and a half ago Chief Justice Roberts was called out for potential dereliction of duty:

The FISC judges are unique in American history and are the wholly owned responsibility of Chief Justice John Roberts, who alone appoints them.  To take the great Harry Truman quote when president: "the buck stops here," the sacred social contract of his stewardship in owning the FISC-appointed judges means that the buck stops with the chief justice.

Chief Justice Roberts’s pattern and practice of ducking responsibility on the fraud on his court that tried to destroy President Trump, his family, fellow administration cohorts and political supporters, is now well established.