Was the Supreme Court decision really a rebuke or just a political opinion of a reporter?
The Chicago Tribune article titled: In rejecting election lawsuit that sought to throw out 20 million votes in 4 key States, Supreme Court justice deliver a rebuke to GOP, reported this statement:
“Through their explicit endorsements or complicity of silence, much of the GOP leadership now shares responsibility for the quixotic attempt to ignore the nation’s founding principles and engineer a different verdict from the one voter cast in November.”
The Purpose of This Post
Is to relate an ancient proverb and idiom to this reporter’s opinion along with a news article to consider about why GOP legislators may be rightfully concerned about the integrity of the 2020 election,
The wise store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin. (Proverb 10:14)
What’s My Point?
The Supreme Court did not rebuke anyone. What they did instead is refuse to hear the suit of the State of Texas on grounds which are mumbo jumbo to laymen.
The reporter used the word rebuke which is his opinion which is not based on knowledge and more like a fool rant which needs correction for reporting a misleading statement.
My point is there may indeed be legitimate concerns by the GOP legislators about how shoddy the election was conducted in a rushed last minute unconstitutional manner to process for the first-time use of millions of mailed in ballots.
For example, “Wisconsin does not have signature matching laws, so it doesn’t matter how a voter signs their name, as long as it’s on their return envelope.“
In My Opinion
Perhaps this idiom best describes the real reason for the GOP legislators concerns about the 2020 election.
“Where’s there is smoke there must be a fire.”
Read the Source Links below.
How confident are you about the fairness and accuracy of the validity of the 2020 election that all the claims of voter fraud are “baseless claims?” Even though hundreds of thousands of ballots processed in Wisconsin were not matched to the voter’s registration signatures?
Is a news headline misleading when it states a reporter’s opinion instead of the actual news report?
Who in your opinion based on the signature matching issue alone more likely “to ignore the nation’s founding principles?”
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Wisconsin Absentee Ballots