Rarely do the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation's demise fully appreciate the enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture's destruction has been rendered incurable.  Largely, it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living.

Perhaps that would explain why, in just the first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions — or, perhaps better viewed as non-decisions — that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to be alarmed and called to action...but did not seem to. 

Only a few weeks ago, without offering any substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at — much less seriously consider — any of the evidence of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others.  Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was not interested in doing what it could — and should — to let America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been shamelessly stolen by those now in power.

Why would they not do this?

Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a New York prosecutor from obtaining former president Trump's tax returns.  The practical effect was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President Trump's ouster from office permanent.

Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone evidence the fact that the agenda of the justices has become politically driven.

It doesn't end there. 

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court — again without explanation — summarily refused to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' denial of Judicial Watch's request that it be allowed to take the deposition of a member of this country's ruling political elite — Hillary Rodham Clinton.  At the end of the day, Judicial Watch was only asking the Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law by finding that all Americans — including elites like Hillary Clinton — are to be treated equally under the law.  Instead, the Supreme Court unfortunately — and inexplicably — declined the opportunity to do even this.  

Then this week, SCOTUS put the final nail in the coffin containing the GOP's 2020 election disputes with its denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Bognet v. Dagraffenreid.  Again, it refused to rule on whether a state's courts are qualified or not under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution to modify that state's presidential election laws.  In short, whether Pennsylvania's Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping the state Legislature's authority to extend the time allowed for counting mail-in ballots is apparently not an issue worthy of this SCOTUS's time.

From such glaring displays of indefensible Supreme Court inaction, the following incontrovertible truths have been set out in plain view before the nation's very eyes:  

1. The Supreme Court today is thoroughly politicized...and thus corrupt.

2. In America, the rule of law is now dead.

3. Worse yet, by these decisions, America's Supreme Court has put on open display its utter disregard — and absolute contempt — for whatever the American people may think about the future unavailability of equal justice in a nation that once promised that such justice would be available to all.  

Such truths should be cause for greater alarm for the American people than even the now almost Orwellian silence of John Durham.  Consider the following recent words of attorney Sidney Powell:

The Supreme Court's failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption.  It is an absolute tragedy for the rule of law, the future of the Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world.

She is not overstating the matter in the least.  An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by the rule of law can be headed in only one direction: toward some form of centralized dictatorship limited only by the whims of those in power — i.e., a tyranny.

A tyranny is a state that, for instance, would order its people to accommodate its importation of a new class of indentured slaves that it is encouraging to enter across the borders of this country, which it has opened simultaneously to endeavoring to seize the weapons of anybody already here — i.e., patriotic citizens — who might object.  And all while, the state uses an imagined pretense — e.g., a fraudulently hyped pandemic — to terminate the rights of those patriotic Americans to engage in commerce, speak freely, and even freely assemble to peacefully protest or even worship.  It's a place where unquestioned obedience is expected and dissent from any of the state's propaganda narratives is silenced, censored, shadowbanned, and de-platformed.  

Sound familiar?  It should.  It is where America is today. 

All of us — both conservatives and liberals — would do well to take off our government-mandated masks long enough to read out loud and seriously reflect upon the following words of a woman — Ayn Rand — who knew more than just a little about how to identify a tyranny:  

When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you — When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — You may know that your society is doomed.

We're left to ask: does America still have the option of reversing course, or, in its march toward some form of tyranny, has it already put the Rubicon in its rearview mirror?  

After all, how is a nation supposed to lawfully remedy the corrupt silence of a politicized Supreme Court from which there is no readily apparent peaceful means for appeal? 

Clifford C. Nichols is an attorney and author of A Barrister's Tales.  He may be contacted regarding this editorial at http://www.cliffordnichols.com/contact.

Image via Flickr, Public Domain.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.