Whether the Supreme Court remains committed to enforcing the Constitution as written or has subordinated constitutional fidelity to political expediency

1. Whether this Court still faithfully upholds the core values enshrined in the Constitution, or whether constitutional enforcement has been reduced to a facade, selectively applied based on covert political pressures and undisclosed influences over Supreme Court outcomes. 2. Whether public policy optics or anticipated public policy consequences may ever outweigh this Court ’s constitutional obligations — and if not, why the Court was willing to confront the volatile constitutional issues presented in Dobbs 3, yet continues to refuse certiorari in Petitioner ’s repeated pleas for enforcement of the controlling constitutional doctrines reaffirmed in Brushaber and Moore . 3. Whether any legal remedy remains available when lower courts willfully misrepresent, or blatantly ignore, controlling Supreme Court authority, and when this Court declines to grant certiorari, thereby effectively endorsing judicial lawlessness to prevail based on fear of political backlash, or adverse financial implications for the 3 Dobbs u. Jackson Women ’s Health Organization, No 19-1392 (2022) iii government. 4. Whether repeated denials of certiorari, despite multiple petitions documenting irrefutable lower court misrepresentations of binding Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Parker 4), constitute a denial of due process — particularly when this Court, as the Constitution ’s appointed guardian, abdicates its duty to enforce its own prior rulings 5 and the Constitution itself, thus transforming from its sworn guardian into its most damaging saboteur. 4 Parker v. C.I.R., 724F.2d 469 (5th Cir, 1984) 5 This highlights the more critical question as to what is the constitutionally required due process remedy when lower courts ignore Supreme Court authority, and certiorari is repeatedly denied by the Supreme Court?