Replies

The cheaters anticipated the attitude of the courts very well. Providing a remedy for massive voter fraud in multiple states is a task that few - if any - judges would want to undertake. The remedy for such extreme fraud would itself need to be extreme, e.g., invalidating hundreds of thousands of ballots; postponing the certification of the election; initiating a lengthy process of discovery; and perhaps even requiring a re-vote in some places.

What judge wants to undertake such a task? They would fear that taking allegations of fraud seriously would be to invite massive civil unrest, would lead to condemnation from the media, criticism from within their peer group, and might even put them and their families in personal danger.

So, instead, they offer a few boilerplate rationales for not even hearing the evidence: lack of standing, failure to show actual harm, and missed deadlines. This gets them off the hook, and they know they will be applauded by the media: "Nothing to see here, folks, even conservative courts agree that there was no fraud or evidence of fraud. Case closed."

It’s a good plan until it isn’t.

At this point, there may be no avoiding civil unrest from one side or the other. Yes, Aunt Teefa and the Black Olives Matter would riot in the streets if a remedy were undertaken... we’re used to that by now and know their tactics. What maybe these cowardly judges and political hacks should have been thinking about, is the kind of damage that can be caused by those who don’t riot at the drop of a hat; those who’ve repressed the impulse to start cutting throats and stretching necks for such a long time.

I’m convinced that, without some sort of redress to the obvious soft-coup, the cork isn’t going back in the bottle.