...and I think it shows why the courts completely abdicating their duty to consider and adjudicate these cases has created a bigger problem than that which already existed.

The courts could have heard these cases and, if they saw fit, resolved the matter in Biden's favor. That would have quieted many on the right, likely including Trump himself.

Instead, the courts essentially said that the complainants -- effectively representing half the country's population -- had no right even to have their cases heard in a court of law. In other words, the court system was shuttered as a means to protect constitutional rights. As a result, people are even more infuriated than just by the alleged fraud itself. When legal means to protect one's rights are exterminated, what's left is either submission or violence, and more than a few people will probably choose the latter. This is a travesty.

As someone who supported Biden, I would think you would want him to have as much legitimacy as possible, which could have come as a result of a thorough hearing of the valid contests being made, not to mention actual audits of the results in question. As an American, I would think you would want your fellow citizens to have as much confidence in their elections as possible.

To take one case, I understand that "Texas has no right to impose its will on Pennsylvania", but that is a misstatement of the argument, thus making it a perfect example of why it should have been heard. Texas was not "trying to impose its will on Pennsylvania". It was instead fighting for the rights of its own citizens who were disenfranchised by Pennsylvania's unconstitutional conduct of its own election. It was fighting to uphold the language in the U.S. Constitution regarding how we handle federal elections in this country.

By dodging the case, the USSC has effectively enshrined PA's (and other states') illegal and unconstitutional actions, and the integrity of our elections going forward will forever be in doubt. How long do you think a country can survive like this?

Whether you agree with Texas' position or not, it is a fascinating constitutional question that the court should have heard. If the USSC won't even hear a case where 18 fucking states are suing another state, then who will? How could a state ever try to protect its citizens' constitutional rights when the courts are made unavailable? What case could be more important than this one?

You can lean on "standing" all you want, but how could these states have not had standing? It's ridiculous on its face. By the way, Trump -- the fucking President of the United States and also an actual injured candidate in the election itself -- was also denied court access on the grounds of standing. So were individual voters. So were members of state legislatures. So, if entire states, the President of the United States, a candidate for the Presidency, voters and legislators have no standing to contest an election, then who does?


[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 01/25/2021 3:18PM]