'It's not over': Newsmax has a  bizarre response to SCOTUS rejecting Texas' election lawsuit

'It's not over': Newsmax has a  bizarre response to SCOTUS rejecting Texas' election lawsuit
Screenshot / YouTube
Newsmax host calls on Trump supporters to overthrow GOP and form 'MAGA Party'

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to reject Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's election lawsuit, Newsmax host Greg Kelly quickly fired back with a delusional rebuke of the court's ruling.

To make matters worse, he dangerously continued to perpetuate a sense of false hope for his viewers by declaring that the election is still "not over," according to The Daily Beast.

On Friday evening, Kelly opened "The Greg Kelly Show" with remarks about the court's ruling. "First off, it's not over," a distressed Kelly began. "The Supreme Court did turn down the Texas case." Before offering details about the ruling, Kelly focused on what he believes is a slight glimmer of hope.

"We have the situation in Pennsylvania that has not been settled. We have Georgia that has not been settled, we have Michigan that has not been settled, independent of this lawsuit from Texas."

During the show, Newsmax White House Correspondent Emerald Robinson also agreed with Kelly's claim about the election not being over. What appears to have been most surprising for conservatives is the fact that all three of the Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justices' —Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch— ruled against the case.

Apparently, they assumed the Trump-appointed justices would automatically side with the president even without evidence. Since they opted to uphold the Constitutional oath they took to protect America's democracy, Kelly and Robinson surmised that they must not "understand the gravity of the situation."

"What I'm hearing from a lot of conservatives is that they wonder if Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and the new justice, Amy Coney Barrett, actually understand the gravity of the situation," Robinson said.

She added, "The president put three Supreme Court justices on the bench during his first term, yet none of those that he put on the bench—at the recommendation of the Federalist Society—were with the team, or with Alito and Thomas, in actually deciding to hear the case. They chose not to. They sided with the liberal judges."

Sadly, it appears Robinson failed to look at the ruling through an objective lens. It was never about siding with a political party. The ruling was always centered on upholding the law.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.