Exactly. Judges are using the technicalities of law to avoid actually looking at the evidence and taking a tough stand, even thought the result of these dismissals is to deny the constitutional rights of the whole nation to free and fair elections.
It's maddening.
I know Trump and his team have other legal avenues left to pursue, but I'm feeling the ticking clock very acutely.
It's not even technicalities. It's just mental gymnastics and word salad to avoid the real rational and logical conclusion that should have been made here. Their argument puts enough of a spin on things that they can fool the "average" person who won't think twice - but upon scrutiny it is easily torn to shreds.
When states joined the union they agreed that elections of their common federal government would be subject to certain common rules, checks, and balances. SCOTUS basically said the way one state runs their elections is not the business of any other state, EVEN WHEN it's in violation of this agreement.
It is also a question of Original Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction.
TX seeking original jurisdiction would have allowed SCOTUS to review evidence. Appellate jurisdiction, which would be where Trump's cases would end up, won't.
The core issue is two fold. One is the election fraud and the evidence therein and the second is violations of the constitution via constitutional powers being usurped by branches of the state governments.
So far, none of those issues have been actually reviewed and decided on.
This isn't a would have allowed thing. It's a shall have original jurisdiction thing. It's one of those non-discretionary shall thingees that the judges all go on about, except when it applies to them themselves.
You missed the context. I was saying that having Original Jurisdiction gives SCOTUS the authority to review evidence vs. Appellate Jurisdiction, which doesn't.
I agree with you but SCOTUS needs to actually accept the case in order for all that to fall into place, which is why them rejecting Texas' case due to no standing is that much worse.
That's exactly right. The SC does not want to deal with the personal and political blowback of taking a stand, so they've refused to hear the case on a technicality.
Fundamentally, what this does is, it enshrines "one rule for me, one rule for thee" as a legal principle. It says that entire states can shred the Constitution and other states can't do anything about it. So what does the Constitution mean now? Practically, it means nothing.
One thought that occurs to me, it opens up a huge can of worms for liberals because what's to stop red states from rejecting all gun control laws, or banning illegal immigrants, or confiscating all properties of big tech companies, or banning the FBI from their borders on the grounds that the FBI is a traitor organization? Well nothing, pretty much, from what I can see. If lawlessness is the left's game plan now, well, let's see if TWO can play.
That requires our side to stop playing by the rules.
That's a pretty big ask, since we were all raised to play by the rules, unlike the "ends justify the means" and moral relativism attitudes prevalent in the left.
They don't dismiss cases because they don't want to "look at the evidence," they dismiss cases because they follow the law and the law is technical. If you don't have standing, to hear your case would be illegal.
So explain the revote dems got in North Carolina with just the undervote statistic.
Its a two tiered system where left wing judges bend the law to favor their fellow travelers. While right wingers have to do crowd sourced research funded by average americans only to get dismissed over latches and standing.
I'm not a lawyer. But looking at events as an intelligent layperson I see a pattern of every election-related lawsuit getting dismissed out of every court for technical reasons.
Are the Trump legal team and the other lawyers filling these suits completely inept?
Or has the law been structured in such a way that judges can always find a technical reason to dismiss any suit without hearing the evidence?
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "the law" is being deliberately used to deny justice. And that this can be done in a case where the literal foundations of our republic are at risk is terrifying.
SPEZ: But you are brave to post your reply knowing how unpopular it would be.
Exactly. Judges are using the technicalities of law to avoid actually looking at the evidence and taking a tough stand, even thought the result of these dismissals is to deny the constitutional rights of the whole nation to free and fair elections.
It's maddening.
I know Trump and his team have other legal avenues left to pursue, but I'm feeling the ticking clock very acutely.
It's not even technicalities. It's just mental gymnastics and word salad to avoid the real rational and logical conclusion that should have been made here. Their argument puts enough of a spin on things that they can fool the "average" person who won't think twice - but upon scrutiny it is easily torn to shreds.
When states joined the union they agreed that elections of their common federal government would be subject to certain common rules, checks, and balances. SCOTUS basically said the way one state runs their elections is not the business of any other state, EVEN WHEN it's in violation of this agreement.
It's completely absurd.
It is also a question of Original Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction.
TX seeking original jurisdiction would have allowed SCOTUS to review evidence. Appellate jurisdiction, which would be where Trump's cases would end up, won't.
The core issue is two fold. One is the election fraud and the evidence therein and the second is violations of the constitution via constitutional powers being usurped by branches of the state governments.
So far, none of those issues have been actually reviewed and decided on.
This isn't a would have allowed thing. It's a shall have original jurisdiction thing. It's one of those non-discretionary shall thingees that the judges all go on about, except when it applies to them themselves.
You missed the context. I was saying that having Original Jurisdiction gives SCOTUS the authority to review evidence vs. Appellate Jurisdiction, which doesn't.
I agree with you but SCOTUS needs to actually accept the case in order for all that to fall into place, which is why them rejecting Texas' case due to no standing is that much worse.
That's exactly right. The SC does not want to deal with the personal and political blowback of taking a stand, so they've refused to hear the case on a technicality.
Fundamentally, what this does is, it enshrines "one rule for me, one rule for thee" as a legal principle. It says that entire states can shred the Constitution and other states can't do anything about it. So what does the Constitution mean now? Practically, it means nothing.
One thought that occurs to me, it opens up a huge can of worms for liberals because what's to stop red states from rejecting all gun control laws, or banning illegal immigrants, or confiscating all properties of big tech companies, or banning the FBI from their borders on the grounds that the FBI is a traitor organization? Well nothing, pretty much, from what I can see. If lawlessness is the left's game plan now, well, let's see if TWO can play.
That requires our side to stop playing by the rules.
That's a pretty big ask, since we were all raised to play by the rules, unlike the "ends justify the means" and moral relativism attitudes prevalent in the left.
They don't dismiss cases because they don't want to "look at the evidence," they dismiss cases because they follow the law and the law is technical. If you don't have standing, to hear your case would be illegal.
Except standing is a concept made up relatively recently and has no basis
So explain the revote dems got in North Carolina with just the undervote statistic.
Its a two tiered system where left wing judges bend the law to favor their fellow travelers. While right wingers have to do crowd sourced research funded by average americans only to get dismissed over latches and standing.
You will never be a woman.
Your gaping wound stinks dude. Go back to reddit.
Idiot
I'm not a lawyer. But looking at events as an intelligent layperson I see a pattern of every election-related lawsuit getting dismissed out of every court for technical reasons.
Are the Trump legal team and the other lawyers filling these suits completely inept?
Or has the law been structured in such a way that judges can always find a technical reason to dismiss any suit without hearing the evidence?
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the "the law" is being deliberately used to deny justice. And that this can be done in a case where the literal foundations of our republic are at risk is terrifying.
SPEZ: But you are brave to post your reply knowing how unpopular it would be.
Can you expand on this? What judge has looked at evidence and judged based on it?