11 ms·
Why not? "Sympathetic" courts are explicitly Trump's strategy to stay in power by validating vote suppression and even allowing states to not count all the vote
by clusterfish 6y ago
Why not? "Sympathetic" courts are explicitly Trump's strategy to stay in power by validating vote suppression and even allowing states to not count all the votes. And you think some puny section is exempt from such bullshit?
We have a new standard for how much such technicalities as separation of power matter in America, better get used to it. It's not like Democrats will fix all that even if they sweep the election, they'll just sit on their hands as usual.
- rayiner 6y agoDemocrats invented obliterating separation of powers, and then bludgeoned the Supreme Court into accepting it through court packing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp.... > This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, which after threats from Roosevelt began to read congressional power more expansively in this area, in cases such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.[8] However, more recent cases such as United States v. Lopez[9] perhaps signal a growing inclination in the Court to once again affirm limits on its scope. In a unanimous 2011 decision, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent.[10]
- clusterfish 6y agoYou don't need to go 85 years back to judge current political parties, and that was not the point of my comment. The point is, US governance is fucked, and nobody will save you.