Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'm still stuck on how worthless Kavanaugh and ACB ended up being; you know they're never going to have the guts to tell the establishment "no" when it really matters, and we're stuck with these disingenuous cowards until they finally kick the bucket. We've basically lost the Supreme Court for an entire generation at least.
they're probably afraid of looking like they're siding with Trump. They were Trump's picks but they want to make it clear they are not Trump stooges.
It's political.
Weak spined fucking cowards, those two.
This doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with Trump. The state violated the law. It doesn't even matter who the candidates were.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Which essentially makes them politicians, NOT judges.
I mean, at this level judges are politicians. They exist to push the law in certain directions. Our desire for the law to conform with the principles of the initial 10 amendments is not meaningfully less political than the desire that they dont.
Law is downstream of politics.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I wanna point out, deciding not to hear the case could well be a good thing. The Supreme Court has to be really, really careful about what they decide to rule on because once they do, it's a precedent that will apply to every other court in the world and a nightmare to ever change and nobody wants another Dredscott. One of the best things the court can do sometimes is kick the can down the road and let time reveal more facts before being forced to make such a binding decision.
Bigking321
Well-known member
I don't think this is one of those times.
This was them giving permission for any court or secretary of state to alter laws at will in violation of the state constitution with no legal recourse to prevent it.
It should have been a 9-0 decision saying "lol. No, you can't do that. Follow the law and state constitution." But can't have anything cast doubt on the most secure election in history I guess...
This was them giving permission for any court or secretary of state to alter laws at will in violation of the state constitution with no legal recourse to prevent it.
It should have been a 9-0 decision saying "lol. No, you can't do that. Follow the law and state constitution." But can't have anything cast doubt on the most secure election in history I guess...
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Not hearing and then making a decision is likely to be seen as the 'Dred Scott' of the 21st century.
Because at this point, what legal recourse do those disenfranchised by the 2020 election fraud have to turn to?
And when there is no legal recourse left, what can be done?
f1onagher
Well-known member
Its gonna be a bad day when he kicks it. I like Alito but he tends to be a team player too often. Thomas has been the only legitimately constitutionalist judge on the bench in a long time and we've all learned how hard it is to even get even milquetoast Republicans in.
We're out of boxes and I'm beginning to think that's the plan. The demand for "white supremacist" violence currently far outstrips its supply.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
They're courting violence because they want to use it as an excuse to become even more authoritarian, but doing so also erodes the illusion of their legitimacy. Eventually, it's going to escalate beyond their ability to control, and that's when the civil war will begin in earnest. Unfortunately, said war will likely be fought amongst the plebs exclusively; between those who have been brainwashed by the establishment, and those who haven't. Even if the latter manages to win, most of the patricians will have long since fled the country by that point; either to simply escape justice, or to try and rally support for sanctions against a newly-liberated United States.
In the end, we will be left ravaged by internal strife, isolated from and derided by much of the world, and most of those personally responsible will live out the rest of their lives in comfort beyond our reach; and that's one of the better-case scenarios. That said; in the long term, we'll probably be far better off than we would be if we don't fight back and win.
One can only pray they will be hunted down if that ever comes to pass.
The Mods are Watching - And This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things?
Hi all, we mods understand the frustration over the recent SCOTUS decisions. They're beyond frustrating. That said, can we please not have comments like "The demand for 'white supremacist' violence currently far outstrips its supply?" It's not helping. Things are crazy enough as it is and we as a community do not need to contribute to it.
I don't understand? The claim is that the left wants white supremacists to act up so that they can then point their fingers at the right, and lump them in with white supremacists, and that there aren't enough white supremacists for this to work.
From my perspective, this seems to be exactly what they're doing. After the capitol riots they pointed at the few people wearing racist shirts and now the prevailing narrative is "white supremacists stormed the capitol"
Not to argue with a mod, but can you please clarify why this is an issue?
lordmcdeath
Well-known member
Justice Thomas was the last conservative Supreme court justice appointed before the GOP effectively outsourced all conservative judicial nomination and recruitment to the Heritage Foundation. Heritage was formed around judicial philosophy that worked well for things like Religious Liberty and Deregulation, which were places where the old GOP and the new one agreed.
But they are practically built around the most proscriptive view on things like Standing, Latches, and Remedy. Essentially they've been quietly backdooring tort reform into the Federal and many State courts slowly and quietly enough that its passing almost completely unrecognized. It is part of the reason that no one who has the option sues in Federal Court on a civil level. This was always the point of agreement between the Social Conservatives and the Chamber of Commerce.
Beyond the fact that it takes decades for Judicial philosophy to change even when people are actively trying to get it to match, which was basically ignored for the first 3 1/2 years of Trump's term, much less those who were chosen earlier. A political realignments always come into conflict with the judiciary, as they tend to change significantly more slowly than political parties. Especially when the realignments are centered around conservative populism. Andrew Jackson famously had huge problems with judges even chosen by his own parties predecessors. (Though Trump suffers by that comparison not a little.)
Not only was this entirely predictable problem, that has happened before, but in many ways its like getting angry at a hammer for not shooting bullets, just because someone had been hammering nails with the butt of a gun before.
But they are practically built around the most proscriptive view on things like Standing, Latches, and Remedy. Essentially they've been quietly backdooring tort reform into the Federal and many State courts slowly and quietly enough that its passing almost completely unrecognized. It is part of the reason that no one who has the option sues in Federal Court on a civil level. This was always the point of agreement between the Social Conservatives and the Chamber of Commerce.
Beyond the fact that it takes decades for Judicial philosophy to change even when people are actively trying to get it to match, which was basically ignored for the first 3 1/2 years of Trump's term, much less those who were chosen earlier. A political realignments always come into conflict with the judiciary, as they tend to change significantly more slowly than political parties. Especially when the realignments are centered around conservative populism. Andrew Jackson famously had huge problems with judges even chosen by his own parties predecessors. (Though Trump suffers by that comparison not a little.)
Not only was this entirely predictable problem, that has happened before, but in many ways its like getting angry at a hammer for not shooting bullets, just because someone had been hammering nails with the butt of a gun before.
It's optics and there's enough calls to violence these days. We don't need this, and we are asking nicely for people to throttle it back a bit. I get it. We're pissed. But calling for people's heads on a pike right now is counter-productive.
No, I don't think you're understanding it. It's not a call for violence.
It's saying that the left wants white supremacists to act out so they can exploit it, but that there aren't enough white supremacists for their plan to work. In my edit I provided an example of them doing exactly this.
This isn't a call to violence at all. It's pointing out that the left WANTS the right to be violent and racist. No one here is calling for violence From what I can tell
Edit: @Urabrask Revealed Definitely goes over the line though, I just saw that
Again, I get it. I'm not being bootish. Far from it. Just saying cool the tempers, f1onagher might want to clarify the points, as I read it to mean as a call myself. That said, I do accept your explanation.
Last edited:
I didn't post it, I just interpreted it differently than you.
All is good. I cant speak for anyone else but I won't step out of line.
I was not calling for "heads on pikes", I expressed hope that those with vile deeds don't escape the consequences of their own actions.