I was horrified when I read the news that SCOTUS threw out Texas’s lawsuit. I have since read that we are rallying to overcome this blow by incorporating Texas’s talking points in other lawsuits; Giuliani is hoping that where Texas didn’t have legal standing, the President will. I sure hope so, but I think in the midst of all this legal side-stepping, the courts have forgotten their purpose.
The whole point of a court is to resolve disputes. Yes, it is important to protect the sanctity of the court by allowing it to dismiss stupid cases out of hand. But when this many people are upset about something, the court needs to do something about it. We gave them four years in court over the Russian collusion fallacy, and yet they won’t even give us the chance to speak. Our cases are all being dismissed on technicalities, not the weighing of the evidence.
The Supreme Court should have taken the case. The fact that SCOTUS dismissed the case does nothing to diffuse the situation. We want to resolve this peacefully. We want to prove, once and for all, one way or the other, what happened. We want to have a grown-up discussion about what’s been coming out. Shutting down our only legal avenue doesn’t end the argument, it throws gasoline on the fire.
The courts need to resolve these issues, not ignore them.
12 replies on “The Purpose of the Court”
They are afraid. Afraid that if they make a decision that they’ll be perceived as partisan. They are afraid that if they make a decision that there will be riots and their lives will be at stake. Bottom line, they’re cowards and aren’t living up to their responsibilities for which they were appointed.
Like so many of you, I was appalled at the utter lack “nads” displayed by the argument of “no standing”. It might be hilarious if it weren’t so serious a circumstance.
Imagine, parties to a contract find certain other parties playing fast and loose with the terms of the contract. Then having a court say the plaintiffs have “no standing”.
Absolute heresy. OF COURSE they have standing. (Unless the court is declaring the contract null and void.)
Even more sadly, is the remembrance that the Dred Scott decision preceded a tragic national conflagration with significantly more deaths than the current “virus”.
There is a danger with the Texas lawsuit.
One state bringing the voting practices of another state to the Supreme Court opens up the possibility of California Challenging the Texas voting districts as Gerrymandered. or NY challenging Georgia’s Abortion laws as creating an undue burden on NY abortion facilities.
Just because the Supreme Court is strict construction today, does not mean it will be strict construction tomorrow.
The proper plaintiff is the Georgia Legislature, and I will be horn swaggled if I can understand why Georgia Legislature did not stand up on their hind legs and file suit as soon as their prerogative was stepped on.
One of the excuses SCOTUS made was that it was not good for one state to sue another for damages. Unfortunately for them, we can and it’s covered by the Constitution. I do, however, see your point with respect to gerrymandering, etc., but this is a federal election and affects the entire country, (as 18 more states signed on), as opposed to one state finding fault with another state over a single issue. I think an amendment can be written to limit the types of cases one state can bring against another. But there I go again, having those darn pipe dreams…
Its like saying legal voters have no standing in this election.
I’m as horrified as you are, Aylis. For the first time in my 6+ decades on this planet I’m beginning to feel that there is nothing left to believe in, nobody left to trust. Everybody must be on the take, or somehow corrupted: The election system, the courts, the media, education….. and I could go on.
I’ve also started to realize — with some help from Bill, Scott and Steve — that the election fraud thing has been going on for years. How else to explain the election and re-election of creatures like Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer and especially Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
I also wonder how someone as arrogant as Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi continue to remain in office.These scumbags have no interest in doing their jobs of representing the people who continue to re-elect them over and over again. Their only objective is to get re-elected. No body in the democrat party is willing to work with the republicans on anything because of the ration of shit they’d have to put up with. As for AOC and that clown Swallwell, there has to be corruption there, those 2 have a combined IQ that’s lower than a bag of rocks.
Swalwell, Schiff and Pelosi all come from CA. Does that help?
Yeah, I know. I’m actually ashamed of the fact that schiff represents the area that I grew up in.(burbank,ca.) Really glad we moved out of state in ’94.
Re: AOC.
She is selling Tee Shirts on her website.
That sounds like Capitalism to me. . .
The real danger, Aylis, is that judges won’t be liked be the popular culture. They might be the subject of satire and unpleasant opinions within the “in crowd”.
That being the case, we can all breathe a sigh of relief as our electoral system is reduced to the value of those stale French fries that your kids manage to lodge in the seat cushions of your car. We will know that SCOTUS judges will still be invited to a few dinners with the important people in government and media.
Oh, yeah, there is also China. Don’t forget China.
Thank you Aylis for your comment. I am in utter disbelief at SCOTUS response to Texas’ filing. We have much work to do.