...10 things wrong with this post. Here are a few:

1) The idea that Dems "accepted" the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 is just laughable. Yes, Gore himself "conceded", but who cares? That means nothing. What actually happened is the entire Dem party spent the next four years sabotaging Bush at every chance because he was an illegitimate president in their mind. As just one example, the chairman of the Dem party, former Dem governor of Virginia and current Dem candidate for governor of Virginia is on videotape -- FOUR YEARS after the 2000 election -- still asserting verbatim that the 2000 election was "stolen". Has he subverted democracy? Should he be censored? Should he be a credible candidate for state governor? Are the people who are voting for him insurrectionists, terrorists or idiots? So, just save it.

2) Exact same thing following 2016. Yes, Hillary "conceded" in the moment and then spent the next four years calling Trump illegitimate. She and the rest of the NeverTrumpers launched a multi-year fraudulent investigation into Trump to sabotage his administration at the least and frame him for crimes at the worst. They abused the impeachment process to subvert the election they supposedly accepted and get Trump tossed from office despite the election results. It's simply laughable to claim the Dems ever accepted Trump's victory in any meaningful way.

3) Whatever a court says is often irrelevant to knowing what actually happened. Easiest analogy to use here is O.J. Simpson. Did the courts decide whether he killed his wife or not? You tell me.

Regarding the 2020 election, most lawsuits were never even heard on an evidentiary basis -- they were simply tossed by the courts for standing issues or for no stated reason at all. Those decisions not to hear cases have no bearing on whether the underlying laws were broken, fraud occurred, etc.

Secondarily, because of the ways in which the laws were broken and the election carried out, no court could possibly determine whether there was enough fraud to have affected the outcome. Even an audit can't do that at this point. This is why it's such a big deal for elections to be conducted properly and legally on the front end -- they are impossible to fix on the back end.

You are correct that under our system of government the judicial branch settles matters of law, but that doesn't mean they settle it correctly or indisputably, nor does it mean that they settle the underlying facts about what happened. Additionally, they are particularly suspect in political matters when political judges are making political decisions. You do know, for example, that the Supreme Court of PA is an elected body dominated by Democrats, right?

Regardless, no court decision is sacrosanct -- we can claim it's bullshit all we want, and there is nothing wrong with that. Further, any court that refused to hear a case, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, didn't "resolve disputes" to begin with -- they IGNORED the disputes, and resolved nothing. Hence, the situation in which we find ourselves today.

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 10/11/2021 3:41PM]