Exclusive Content > Editorials
Today's SCOTUS victories v. 2020 Election Challenges
Cyber Liberty:
--- Quote from: Kamaji on June 30, 2023, 06:28:00 pm ---Because the Court does not want to wade into election-related cases unless the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable. Which was not the case. Wading into a dubious case would jeopardize the Court's independence.
--- End quote ---
2000 Election was more clear than 2020? Well, I suppose the Dem cheating was better at burying the facts in the case in 2020.
Kamaji:
--- Quote from: Cyber Liberty on June 30, 2023, 06:49:32 pm ---2000 Election was more clear than 2020? Well, I suppose the Dem cheating was better at burying the facts in the case in 2020.
--- End quote ---
Yes. The Court also got a lot of blowback from 2000 that, as an institution, it did not like. Furthermore, the Court's actions in 2000 were to stop a recount in one state, not to attempt to invalidate an entire election. Way too dangerous for the Court to wade into that without stunningly clear undeniable evidence.
Like it or lump it, the Court has to consider its own continued existence and the fact that it depends for enforcement of its judgments on organs it does not control. And the more political a question the thinner the ice is for the Court.
Why do you think Marbury v. Madison came out the way it did? The Court in that case essentially got to have its cake, and eat it, too. It got to decide that Marbury was poorly dealt with, but then it also got to establish that it did not have the power to issue a judgment to that effect because the statute in question that supposedly authorized the case was infirm, thereby establishing the even greater institutional tool of judicial review.
Bigun:
--- Quote from: Kamaji on June 30, 2023, 06:28:00 pm ---Because the Court does not want to wade into election-related cases unless the evidence is crystal clear and undeniable. Which was not the case. Wading into a dubious case would jeopardize the Court's independence.
--- End quote ---
They did not, and do not, have discretion to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction.
Bigun:
This court, under Roberts, is systematically cementing in place the judicial tyranny that plagues this nation currently. Throwing us a bone or two occasionally is not winning.
Kamaji:
--- Quote from: Bigun on June 30, 2023, 07:16:36 pm ---They did not, and do not, have discretion to refuse to hear cases in which they have original jurisdiction.
--- End quote ---
They concluded that there was no standing. They heard it, and disposed of it. You need stop engaging in ends-justifies-means analysis of court decisions you do not like.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version