How the Supreme Court Caused the Riot at the Capitol

[rangerrebew]

 How the Supreme Court Caused the Riot at the Capitol
What the Court should do now to repair some of the damage.
by E. Donald Elliott
January 11, 2021, 12:02 AM
 

Okay, now that I have your attention, my provocative title does not in any way absolve President Donald J. Trump and his allies of responsibility for the outrageous actions of the hooligans who broke into the Capitol on January 6 and terrorized our elected representatives and their staffs while they were engaged in debating the fairness of the last presidential election.

However, events often have more than a single cause. The law usually assigns legal responsibility to the “proximate cause,” typically the one closest in time, but not necessarily the “ultimate cause” that created the dangerous situation in the first place.

By this standard, Trump’s inflammatory statements urging the then mostly peaceful protestors to go up to Capitol Hill and “fight” probably were the proximate cause of the riot.

https://spectator.org/how-the-supreme-court-caused-the-riot/

[goatprairie]

So this moron would like the federal gov. to oversee all state elections. What a blow for federalism, huh?
 

[Jazzhead]

I actually agree with most of this.   The Court's refusal on the dubious ground of standing to take the Texas case -and resolve it one way or the other - led to an understandable frustration that there was no available forum to adjudicate this grievance.    I said as much a few weeks ago, and warned that the Court's failure could lead to a legitimate cause for secession.   States need to have a forum to be able to address their disputes, or a key reason for their voluntary compact is gone.

I guess it's a smaller step than I thought from lawful secession to violent insurrection.   

[Jazzhead]

So this moron would like the federal gov. to oversee all state elections. What a blow for federalism, huh?
 

My own view was that the Court should have taken the case and resolved it in favor of Pennsylvania.   In other words,  come to a resolution having the force of law.   Not for the Court to duck its responsibilities. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

So this moron would like the federal gov. to oversee all state elections. What a blow for federalism, huh?
 

Expediency has won over principals every time when Trump comes up for the last 4 years, why would his election challenges be any different?

[goatprairie]

Expediency has won over principals every time when Trump comes up for the last 4 years, why would his election challenges be any different?

You know what all the people screaming for the SC to step into Pennsylvania's elections would be saying if Trump won and Pennsylvania tried to step into Texas's election. They'd be adamant that Pennsylvania had no business i.e. standing, and they should buzz off. It's all hypocritical on the part of Team Trump.

[Absalom]

Too stupid for words!!!!!!

[catfish1957]

Blaming SCOTUS for the event is way past far fetched.

OTOH, flat out ignoring litigants out of (as properly described by Tolkenish) expediency sure stoked the flames of anger.

Finger pointing has hit pandemic status.

[HoustonSam]

I actually agree with most of this.   The Court's refusal on the dubious ground of standing to take the Texas case -and resolve it one way or the other - led to an understandable frustration that there was no available forum to adjudicate this grievance.    I said as much a few weeks ago, and warned that the Court's failure could lead to a legitimate cause for secession.   States need to have a forum to be able to address their disputes, or a key reason for their voluntary compact is gone.

You did indeed say exactly this.

I guess it's a smaller step than I thought from lawful secession to violent insurrection.

From the perspective of the Federal bureaucracy, there is no step there of any size : secession is considered unlawful and is viewed as violent insurrection.

[sneakypete]

So this moron ......

@goatprairie

You give him credit for intelligence not in evidence.

[sneakypete]

... : secession is considered unlawful and is viewed as violent insurrection.

@HoustonSam

Of course it is,it's a threat to the power of the existing Masters of the Universe. NO King can allow his subjects to revolt without putting himself at risk of punishment for deeds done under his rule.

[Jazzhead]

You know what all the people screaming for the SC to step into Pennsylvania's elections would be saying if Trump won and Pennsylvania tried to step into Texas's election. They'd be adamant that Pennsylvania had no business i.e. standing, and they should buzz off. It's all hypocritical on the part of Team Trump.

Of course it is.  Well said.