In the lead-up to the 2020 primaries and general election, Democrat state officials in every battleground state and many others, implemented illegal unilateral decisions that radically enabled illegal voting contrary to established law. These baldly partisan decisions were challenged in courts across the nation, with courts either dismissing the acts as unimportant, refusing to take action, or else upholding the propriety of the acts.

And, of course, we know what happened after the election: bent state and federal courts doubled-down and rubber-stamped election fraud – and even sanctioned lawyers who fought election fraud.

And even the US Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas motion that would have nullified the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin. SCOTUS claimed that Texas had not demonstrated a judicially recognizable interest in the manner.

the Supreme Court feels it is safer today to deal with this issue than it was following the controversial 2020 election.

"Safer" - were they threatened?

The DOJ should be prosecuting those who threaten judges