5 ms·

True; on the other hand, the Supreme Court didn't even deign to hear the Trump election challenges, so I think it's fair to wonder if they are really on the sid

by dilap 6y ago

True; on the other hand, the Supreme Court didn't even deign to hear the Trump election challenges, so I think it's fair to wonder if they are really on the side of MAGA-style conservatives. Time will tell if the courts prove to be an obstacle to the Biden admin, but I'll predict probably not (& that will be in contrast to the Trump admin).

azernik 6y ago
There's a vast gap between not going along with baseless and unprecedented attempts to overturn a democratic election, and being left-wing.
- TT3351 6y ago
  Not if you've been socialized by 4chan and Zucc's algorithms
- dilap 6y ago
  Well, it's hardly unprecedented; Gore v Bush anyone? And in general election fraud, complaining about election fraud, and occasionally even doing something about it have a long history in the US. Per polls, something like 20% of democrats believe there was a significant amount of fraud. Democracy doesn't work if a majority of the people don't think the process is fair. If there are allegations of tomfoolery, then let them be argued in court. If they are groundless, great; many people will recognize that and you will increase confidence in the results. By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    > By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system. You don't seem to understand how the justice system works. Courts can't just decide to investigate whatever they want to investigate, if there is no standing to hear a case then there is no case to be heard. Also there were some fraud claims that were dismissed on the merits (because they were utterly baseless) so it's not true that they were all dismissed on procedural grounds. > Bush v. Gore The Bush v. Gore lawsuit was about how to deal with ambiguously marked ballots (remember the hanging chads). No insane Chavez/Dominion/dead voter/whatever election fraud conspiracy theories involved.
    - dilap 6y ago
      Nothing was stopping the Supreme Court from hearing the (e.g.) Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit; it's up to the court itself to decide standing (which also isn't even a legislative concept, but that doesn't matter either way). I agree there were a ton of crazy claims and people flying around (e.g., Lin Wood, either crazy or a scammer or some combination of both), but not all claims were on the face of it crazy. As a practical matter, if you want your democracy to function well, you need most people to have confidence in the election process; I think you do this by (1) allowing free discussion of claims of fraud in public forums and (2) allowing interrogation of serious claims in court, so everyone can see arguments & counterarguments put forward, and also feel that they've been given a fair shot at legal remedy. To a large extent (1) was supressed (on e.g. youtube and twitter), and (2) mostly did not happen. Now we're seeing massive purges on social media of Trump-supporting accounts, which is again, not a good way to increase people's faith in the results of the election. > Bush v. Gore Not that meaningful of a difference between contesting votes based on hanging chads vs. poor signature matches, imo.
      - esoterica 6y ago
        > (which also isn't even a legislative concept) What do "legislative" concepts have to do with the judiciary? You're just throwing around random jargon you don't understand. > but not all claims were on the face of it crazy. All the fraud claims were crazy. Every single one of them. > allowing interrogation of serious claims in court Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a single plaintiff with standing (i.e. Trump or another candidate who allegedly lost a race due to fraud) ever litigated a voter fraud claim in court. Do you know why? Because no serious government lawyer is willing to destroy their reputation by litigating obviously frivolous claims. All the fraud claims were litigated by 3rd party cranks with no standing, hence their dismissal on "procedural grounds". The only lawsuits initiated by Trump or other candidates directly were procedural ones (e.g. complaining about whether or not certain deadlines were changed legally), NOT fraud related. If no one with standing wants to put their reputation on the line to litigate nonsense fraud claims then it is not the fault of the courts that the fraud claims cannot be properly evaluated. > Nothing was stopping the Supreme Court from hearing the (e.g.) Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit; it's up to the court itself to decide standing Yes there was, it's called federalism. Texas doesn't get a say in how Pennsylvania holds its elections. Texas v. Pennsylvania also had absolutely nothing to do with fraud. Texas was just complaining about changes PA made to PA state election laws. And again, the SCOTUS response was, correctly, "fuck off, state's rights". > If they are groundless, great; many people will recognize that and you will increase confidence in the results. This is extraordinarily naive. There is no evidence of fraud and every single non-brainwashed person is already aware of that. The ONLY reason why so many people believe fraud happened is because Donald Trump says so, and a large fraction of the population treat him as an infallible cult leader. It doesn't matter how many cases the courts rule on and how thoroughly everything crank theory is investigated. The Trump cult will just claim the courts are controlled by the deep state pedophiles.
zmmmmm 6y ago
it's really sad that you've reached the point of cynicism where the court putting legal and democratic principles over partisanship is so inconceivable that you think they're sympathetic to the other side.

by dilap 6y ago

azernik 6y ago

There's a vast gap between not going along with baseless and unprecedented attempts to overturn a democratic election, and being left-wing.

TT3351 6y ago
Not if you've been socialized by 4chan and Zucc's algorithms
dilap 6y ago
Well, it's hardly unprecedented; Gore v Bush anyone? And in general election fraud, complaining about election fraud, and occasionally even doing something about it have a long history in the US. Per polls, something like 20% of democrats believe there was a significant amount of fraud. Democracy doesn't work if a majority of the people don't think the process is fair. If there are allegations of tomfoolery, then let them be argued in court. If they are groundless, great; many people will recognize that and you will increase confidence in the results. By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system.
- esoterica 6y ago
  > By dismissing purely on procedural grounds, you weaken the democratic system. You don't seem to understand how the justice system works. Courts can't just decide to investigate whatever they want to investigate, if there is no standing to hear a case then there is no case to be heard. Also there were some fraud claims that were dismissed on the merits (because they were utterly baseless) so it's not true that they were all dismissed on procedural grounds. > Bush v. Gore The Bush v. Gore lawsuit was about how to deal with ambiguously marked ballots (remember the hanging chads). No insane Chavez/Dominion/dead voter/whatever election fraud conspiracy theories involved.
  - dilap 6y ago
    Nothing was stopping the Supreme Court from hearing the (e.g.) Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit; it's up to the court itself to decide standing (which also isn't even a legislative concept, but that doesn't matter either way). I agree there were a ton of crazy claims and people flying around (e.g., Lin Wood, either crazy or a scammer or some combination of both), but not all claims were on the face of it crazy. As a practical matter, if you want your democracy to function well, you need most people to have confidence in the election process; I think you do this by (1) allowing free discussion of claims of fraud in public forums and (2) allowing interrogation of serious claims in court, so everyone can see arguments & counterarguments put forward, and also feel that they've been given a fair shot at legal remedy. To a large extent (1) was supressed (on e.g. youtube and twitter), and (2) mostly did not happen. Now we're seeing massive purges on social media of Trump-supporting accounts, which is again, not a good way to increase people's faith in the results of the election. > Bush v. Gore Not that meaningful of a difference between contesting votes based on hanging chads vs. poor signature matches, imo.
    - esoterica 6y ago
      > (which also isn't even a legislative concept) What do "legislative" concepts have to do with the judiciary? You're just throwing around random jargon you don't understand. > but not all claims were on the face of it crazy. All the fraud claims were crazy. Every single one of them. > allowing interrogation of serious claims in court Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a single plaintiff with standing (i.e. Trump or another candidate who allegedly lost a race due to fraud) ever litigated a voter fraud claim in court. Do you know why? Because no serious government lawyer is willing to destroy their reputation by litigating obviously frivolous claims. All the fraud claims were litigated by 3rd party cranks with no standing, hence their dismissal on "procedural grounds". The only lawsuits initiated by Trump or other candidates directly were procedural ones (e.g. complaining about whether or not certain deadlines were changed legally), NOT fraud related. If no one with standing wants to put their reputation on the line to litigate nonsense fraud claims then it is not the fault of the courts that the fraud claims cannot be properly evaluated. > Nothing was stopping the Supreme Court from hearing the (e.g.) Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit; it's up to the court itself to decide standing Yes there was, it's called federalism. Texas doesn't get a say in how Pennsylvania holds its elections. Texas v. Pennsylvania also had absolutely nothing to do with fraud. Texas was just complaining about changes PA made to PA state election laws. And again, the SCOTUS response was, correctly, "fuck off, state's rights". > If they are groundless, great; many people will recognize that and you will increase confidence in the results. This is extraordinarily naive. There is no evidence of fraud and every single non-brainwashed person is already aware of that. The ONLY reason why so many people believe fraud happened is because Donald Trump says so, and a large fraction of the population treat him as an infallible cult leader. It doesn't matter how many cases the courts rule on and how thoroughly everything crank theory is investigated. The Trump cult will just claim the courts are controlled by the deep state pedophiles.

zmmmmm 6y ago

it's really sad that you've reached the point of cynicism where the court putting legal and democratic principles over partisanship is so inconceivable that you think they're sympathetic to the other side.