Justice Amy Coney Barrett left an important clue concerning an electoral fraud ruling

In a Senate hearing, Senator Kamala Harris demonstrated a twofold ploy of dishonesty while attempting to trap Judge (now Justice) Amy Coney Barrett in a trick question.  See if you can quickly pick out the two ploys in the following short video clip:  

Barrett quickly caught the first ploy and responded masterfully.  She responded that Harris had led with two easy questions THAT had obvious answers and then used them to falsely transition into a loaded question about climate change, which made the incorrect assumption that man-caused climate change is a settled fact.  It was as incongruous as if Harris had asked, can you ride a horse?  Can you ride a mule?  Can you, therefore of course, fly a jet airplane?  

The second blatant dishonesty from Harris was at the end of the clip, when she concluded that Barrett has made it clear that Barrett considers climate change a debatable issue.  Here, when there was no time to clarify, Barrett might have otherwise been able to say, "No, that is not at all what I said.  I did not say that I personally am decided, or undecided, about climate change.  I said the public considers it controversial.  What I said about my personal opinion is that I cannot publicly comment on whatever my opinion is until I am called upon to rule in a matter where that question would apply to a case before me."

Such an answer would, in my view, have been consistent with Barrett's other statements to the committee.  Her responses to Harris also allow us to draw inferences as to Barrett's thinking when it comes to issues of fraud in the election process.

I may be reading the tea leaves here, but see if you agree.

Near the beginning of the clip, in her first answer, Barrett used the term "judicial notice."  This is the clue.  She was asked (preposterously) whether she believes that COVID-19 (the China virus) is contagious.  Barrett answered yes, that is something so obvious and uncontroversial, that one takes "judicial notice" of it.  Consider what that means.  

For some time now, I have been a bit nervous as to whether the Supreme Court, if it rules on the election fraud, might ignore the obvious and overwhelming evidence of that fraud and use some tortured ruling such as the "it's a tax," lack of reasoning for which Justice John Roberts has become infamous.  (He used that bizarre idea to rule Obamacare constitutional despite the proponents having argued that it was not a tax.)  

Barrett's answer, then, does not prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling as follows:  there is enough evidence of obvious fraud to deny Biden the 270 electoral votes he claims to have.  Even if it is not conclusively proved, ballot by ballot, that hundreds of thousands of votes supposedly for Biden were fraudulent, strict proof is not required.  The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is clearly in Trump's favor — so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored.  

If the Court considers that body of evidence, and takes "judicial notice," it can then rule (so to speak) that smoking causes cancer, and that voter fraud can destroy the Republic.  ("The Constitution is not a suicide pact.")  Hopefully, the majority opinion would specifically conclude that voter fraud has been perpetrated by the Democrats, just to make it beyond doubt.  

The Court can then directly rule that Trump has been re-elected (as he has), or at least that the matter must be decided by the House of Representatives.  

Remember that term, "judicial notice."

In a Senate hearing, Senator Kamala Harris demonstrated a twofold ploy of dishonesty while attempting to trap Judge (now Justice) Amy Coney Barrett in a trick question.  See if you can quickly pick out the two ploys in the following short video clip:  

Barrett quickly caught the first ploy and responded masterfully.  She responded that Harris had led with two easy questions THAT had obvious answers and then used them to falsely transition into a loaded question about climate change, which made the incorrect assumption that man-caused climate change is a settled fact.  It was as incongruous as if Harris had asked, can you ride a horse?  Can you ride a mule?  Can you, therefore of course, fly a jet airplane?  

The second blatant dishonesty from Harris was at the end of the clip, when she concluded that Barrett has made it clear that Barrett considers climate change a debatable issue.  Here, when there was no time to clarify, Barrett might have otherwise been able to say, "No, that is not at all what I said.  I did not say that I personally am decided, or undecided, about climate change.  I said the public considers it controversial.  What I said about my personal opinion is that I cannot publicly comment on whatever my opinion is until I am called upon to rule in a matter where that question would apply to a case before me."

Such an answer would, in my view, have been consistent with Barrett's other statements to the committee.  Her responses to Harris also allow us to draw inferences as to Barrett's thinking when it comes to issues of fraud in the election process.

I may be reading the tea leaves here, but see if you agree.

Near the beginning of the clip, in her first answer, Barrett used the term "judicial notice."  This is the clue.  She was asked (preposterously) whether she believes that COVID-19 (the China virus) is contagious.  Barrett answered yes, that is something so obvious and uncontroversial, that one takes "judicial notice" of it.  Consider what that means.  

For some time now, I have been a bit nervous as to whether the Supreme Court, if it rules on the election fraud, might ignore the obvious and overwhelming evidence of that fraud and use some tortured ruling such as the "it's a tax," lack of reasoning for which Justice John Roberts has become infamous.  (He used that bizarre idea to rule Obamacare constitutional despite the proponents having argued that it was not a tax.)  

Barrett's answer, then, does not prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling as follows:  there is enough evidence of obvious fraud to deny Biden the 270 electoral votes he claims to have.  Even if it is not conclusively proved, ballot by ballot, that hundreds of thousands of votes supposedly for Biden were fraudulent, strict proof is not required.  The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is clearly in Trump's favor — so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored.  

If the Court considers that body of evidence, and takes "judicial notice," it can then rule (so to speak) that smoking causes cancer, and that voter fraud can destroy the Republic.  ("The Constitution is not a suicide pact.")  Hopefully, the majority opinion would specifically conclude that voter fraud has been perpetrated by the Democrats, just to make it beyond doubt.  

The Court can then directly rule that Trump has been re-elected (as he has), or at least that the matter must be decided by the House of Representatives.  

Remember that term, "judicial notice."