However, we accepted the decision of the Supreme Court for the Presidential election, so we should accept this one, and get on with winning the election.
A benefit of this is that the Rats are stifled about the Supreme Court and how it shouldn't be listened to.
Now, I think Forester needs to be gracious and say "that's the way it goes" and start hitting Lautenberg on his very poor stance on terrorism, national defense, and assorted other issues.
While I'll give you credit for determination and a never-say-die fighting spirit, what I think I and others on the thread are concerned about goes beyond this particular election. And that is, for any kind of system of self-governance to work, there have to be rules that are clear to all and followed by all. My concern in this case is that it has set a precedent for saying the rules don't really matter, and they can be altered at will as long as you have a majority of votes in a particular judicial body. IOW, a version of might makes right. If that is the case, all the honest effort and fighting spirit in the world isn't going to make a difference, because its not so much what the rules say, as those who have the power make the rules what they want them to be. The Florida case was different. There, the USSC seemed to be saying, follow your own rules. Here, the court seems to be saying, don't worry about them, let your own state SC decide whether or not they mean anything. Well, either laws mean something or they don't. If they don't, why bother passing them in the first place? Just rule by fiat. If they do matter, and don't conflict with underlying laws and established principles that take precedence, then one should stick by them.
I agree. "The Law" hasn't mattered in a long time, and this just proves it!