Is It a ‘Frivolous Effort to Disenfranchise Millions,’ or Do You Need a Remedial English Lesson?

Some of you need a lesson in English. I’m talking to all of you who want to call the Texas-led election lawsuit “a frivolous effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans.” You know who you are.

This is maddening. You shouldn’t be using words like these unless you know what they mean. I hate to play the schoolteacher, but if you need a lesson in definitions, you need a lesson, even if it has to be a remedial one.

“Evidence”

I’d start with the word “frivolous,” but some of you are going to say it really is frivolous because “there’s no evidence of fraud.” We can show loads and loads of evidence, but you’ll insist on saying it isn’t evidence because you can think of other ways to explain it all. Apparently you missed my lesson on the word “evidence” last month.

You do realize, don’t you, that courts admit evidence even if one side might have another explanation? Do you think there’s something unusual about that? If you want frivolous, try this one: “Your honor, I move that exhibit A be removed from evidence because I can think of other ways to interpret it.” You’d be slapped quick with a contempt citation for that one.

“Frivolous”

Back to “frivolous.” The word means “trivial, unimportant, bothersome.” I think you think it only means “bothersome,” or even “we wish it would just go away.” Some of you want to spin it as Trump playing his nasty distasteful games, being the sore loser, trying to steal the election. You think the best thing is to call him out for it, then ignore him. Let him go away. And good riddance!

Except it isn’t just Donald Trump. It’s Texas, too, and a third of the rest of the states. It’s tens of millions of voters.

1. Fraud is not alleged in the TX lawsuit - it is SOLELY based upon the fact that the defendant states altered their election procedures without their state legislatures being involved - which is required as part of the US Constitution.

2. WRT “disenfranchising millions of voters,” - well, that’s EXACTLY why Texas is suing, because the 4 defendant states are the ones which, by their improper changes to their election laws, have ACTUALLY disenfranchised millions of voters - specifically, those of TX and every other state which voted for Donald Trump. Further, THEY have, if any entity or person has, disenfranchised their own voters. You cannot murder your parents and then legitimately throw yourself upon the mercy of the Court because you’re an orphan, and that is essentially what the responses of the 4 defendant states have indicated.

2a) The voters of those states will NOT - repeat NOT - disenfranchise anyone. TX is asking for the SCOTUS to forbid the certification of these states, and to thus mandate (because that’s what the Constitution says must be done) that the legislatures of those states decide who those states’ Electors will be. Thus, through their legislators, the people of those states who legitimately voted will NOT be disenfranchised, but instead have their own elected representatives choose the Electors, and thus they will have had a voice. Now, what the legislatures choose to consider - perhaps and probably including efforts to fraudulently change the results of the Presidential election in their states - when deciding who to choose as Electors is their business and concern.

>>> 1. Fraud is not alleged in the TX lawsuit - it is SOLELY based upon the fact that the defendant states altered their election procedures without their state legislatures being involved - which is required as part of the US Constitution.

I dont’ think this is true.
I read part of it... and Fraud IS claimed AS A RESULT of the unconstitutional actions taken.

Otherwise there could be no damage if there is no fraud.

You Need to go read the suit.

What we are disenfranchising are those who engaged or applauded the effort to rig the election, including a lot of private actors who have no legal authority over the conduct of elections and a lot of state actors who are not elected by the people but thought they could set aside the electoral schemes passed by the state legislatures.

You can’t “disenfranchise” someone who never voted.

That is a critical point.

Many of the "disenfranchised millions" don't exist and the rest voted for the candidate that lost.

I.e., not a single Dem was disenfranchised...but all R's who actually outnumbered the Dem voters were the victim of fraud.

People know there was election fraud but they don’t have the courage to see it contested because they know it will mean civil war. Seven months of riots going into the election were a low intensity civil war that was much more about Leftist outrage at Trump being president than it was about George Floyd being killed in a confrontation with police.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.