Judicial activism is nothing new. But at least in the past the judges that were trying to achieve a certain outcome at least tried to tie their decision to the law. More and more judges today don't care about the law. They care about the outcome which too often is opposing A duly elected official.

Justice Amy Totenberg is the latest and maybe one of the worst haters of America and the rule of law. Her ruling in Curling v. Raffensberger should be taught in law school as an example of what not to do. The case involved election integrity issues in Georgia starting in 2018 and running through the 2020 election. Several cases were consolidated into this one. 14 months after the trial she finally issued a decision. I will be brief in summarizing the issues and evidence.

The case involved the use of Dominion and Diebold tabulating machines. J Alex Halderman is an expert on these machines and has testified in a number of trials demonstrating how easily the systems can be hacked. Using a big pen to push a button on the back of the machine can reset the security code. So can using a USB jump drive. Any person can do this and use it to reprogram the tabulation software. The end result is that the screen will display a summary of what the person marked on their paper ballot which is confusing. But more importantly a QR code that is also displayed on the screen would show exactly what is being tabulated. Halderman easily demonstrated how the screen display and the QR code are different. Quite simply he showed that votes for Donald Trump were recorded as votes for Joe Biden, as an example.

Dr. Phillip Stark, UC Berkley expert on election integrity, testified that at least 800,000 ballots in Georgia had a number of issues. The QR codes on most did not match what was recorded on the display screen. Neither was the law followed in chain of custody of the paper ballots. There was no record of who collected the ballots at the voting place or who took control of the ballots to transport them to the county clerk's tabulation center or who took possession of them at the center. He also criticized the fact that a voter could not take a picture of the QR code and see the actual tabulation of their ballot. Ballots could have easily been 'lost' or fake ballots could have been delivered to the clerk.

It is important to note that Judge Totenberg wrote in her decision that both Halderman and Stark had clearly demonstrated how easily the votes could have been manipulated and that the law had been broken regarding the chain of custody requirements. Because the evidence would have led her to only one conclusion, decertifying the election results going back to 2018, she got creative.

Judge Totenberg essentially dismissed the case claiming the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions did not have standing to sue the Secretary of State. She wrote, "After lengthy consideration of the parties' arguments and voluminous trial evidence, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims because neither of these asserted injuries constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest under governing precedent."

She went on: First, Plaintiffs do not claim that Georgia's use of a QR code...prevents the individual Plaintiffs...from voting, dilutes their votes, or prevents their votes from being counted. They instead claim that because the voting system tabulates their votes by scanning an indecipherable QR code on their printed ballots, they are unable to verify that the QR code that is tabulated accurately captures the selections that they made on the voting machine."

But it gets worse. The issue of standing had been ruled on previously. Judge Totenberg had made the same ruling, the plaintiffs did not have standing. An appeals court at the federal level overturned her ruling saying it was clear that a voter had an expectation that their vote would be properly recorded and counted. It is one of the most important tenets and pillars of our government. To have one's vote improperly recorded violated every tenet of a free society.

Furthermore, seeing the plaintiffs did not claim their votes were diluted or prevent it from being counted is a twisting of the claim that is rightfully made. This was clearly pointed out by the appeals court and the pleadings from the plaintiffs that said their right to express their vote had been violated. That their votes had been nullified. Wanting them to use certain words when the intent is essentially the same is judicial acrobatics.

A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would try to codify behavior that is unacceptable and punishments for judges that are clearly reaching decisions not supported by the law. It will be a difficult bill to enforce and there's probably more grandstanding but it might also give Congress an easier path to impeachment or at least reprimanding a judge.

For those on the left that are worried we are living in a time when our constitution and democracy are being dismantled, you are correct. The judicial activism is destroying the law of the land and replacing your voice with theirs. They are replacing the voice of the people who duly elected this President and members of Congress with their own voice. It is this president who is trying to restore the rule of law which follows the Constitution.