Why the Supreme Court needs to get this right

Politics permeates every aspect of our government, except for one branch.

And that's why it's going to be up to our Supreme Court to vet this most bizarre election of 2020.

And none other than a headline in the Democrat-run New York Times from Aug. 11 bolsters the argument.

The headline from August? "The voting will end Nov. 3; The legal battle probably won't."

Now consider this: If the voting did end on Nov. 3 like The Times said it would President Trump would be planning his inaugural party.

So why didn't voting end on Nov. 3 when The Times own headline proclaimed it would?

Because Democrat state election officials in battleground states allowed mail in balloting to continue way beyond Election Day.

And the Supreme Court allowed it.

The obfuscation of "voting by mail" began months ago, when White House press corp reporters kept berating the White House for saying mail-in ballots are not secure.

"People been mailing in ballots for years," they cried out at multiple press conferences. "How dare you impugn the integrity of voting by mail."

Ah, that's the rub. Yes, voting by mail with an absentee ballot has been going on for years, but that's very secure. A real person has to apply for it. A real person has to fill it out and return it.

That's very different from vote-by-mail, which is where millions of ballots are sent to every address, left stacked up in apartment houses and harvested by party operatives. This is the least secure form of voting so why would states embrace it?

The vote-by-mail high jinks, ignored by the mainstream press who would rather look the other way than investigate a reasonable allegation, took on greater significance after Democrat-controlled polling officials refused to let GOP poll watcher get close enough to inspect the ballots that were coming in by the truckload after Nov. 3.

First they wouldn't let them in, then they wouldn't let them be closer than six feet to the ballot counters, even though they were all masked. Masks are supposed to protect you when you're within six feet like at the grocery store. Right?

So why not let them get close enough to see the ballot if they're properly masked! Like they did in Florida in 2000.

Some poll watchers said even though they were at a distance they thought they saw a whole box of ballots that were filled in with the same strangely colored ink. In fact, there are dozens of other anecdotal grievances and some 50 witnesses who say they were not allowed access to the ballots for inspection.

Plus the very fact that the Democrat poll officials in Pennsylvania wouldn't allow GOP officials to inspect the individual ballots is prima facie fraud.

If the country can waste $32 million dollars and most of a presidency on a proven Russian hoax called the Mueller Report, the Supreme Court can afford to be the adult in the room, take some time to look at the evidence of fraud that's out there and make a thoughtful decision.

If that's done and it's determined there was no massive voter fraud, we'll accept the outcome.

If Biden had been ahead on Nov. 3 and Trump had overtaken him on Saturday, leftist militants would be in full throat and full body armor out on the streets of our cities.

All the country wants is justice. And when you're seeking justice, you don't take it into your own hands, you take 'em to court!

Only then can the healing really begin.