4681
Comments (257)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
marishiten 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's more complicated than that.

The courts are in a shitty bind here.

They're not supposed to be seen as 'taking sides' but in cases with election challenges, they'll be seen as taking sides. If they're seen as that, it erodes confidence in the rule of law in general which GREATLY damages the social structure as a whole.

They also don't want to be seen as kingmakers. That's not their job.

They also don't want to be involved in political spats because the Judicial branch isn't SUPPOSED to be partisan or political. It's supposed to amoral.

The problem comes in when it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you do something, you're seen as taking sides. If you do nothing, you're seen as taking sides.

At some point, they will need to be political. They just don't want to because that opens the entire court system up to a slew of problems that will have lasting ripples. But, eventually, they will need to. Because the court systems/justice system is so fucking broken dude. Anyone who's spent a night in jail waiting for arraignment knows that by the sheer treatment of inmates.

6
FrmrAmericanRepublic 6 points ago +6 / -0

Sorry pede, but I don't buy the "courts can't be arbiters" because they most certainly could've said "yes, this is bullshit, kick it to the state legislatures" which is what was supposed to happen with wussy boy Pence before he bowed out.

Everyone so goddamned afraid of looking at evidence, it makes me wonder how long we'll last against enemies with real determination, like the Chinese.

We lived in a system of advocacy, and the goddamned courts were supposed to be the part that is the CHECK and BALANCE against rampant bullshit.

But they're corrupt too, so fuck it all. No wonder this Republic is fucked.

1
MarchDC2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Second Republic will be glorious.