…what Gore was trying to pull in the 2000 election -- i.e., violations of equal protection, not to mention outright violations of both the law and the Constitution. The case wasn't weak -- it was blindingly obvious. In the TX v. PA case alone, multiple other states signed onto it. If that's not an issue that the USSC needs to weigh in on, then nothing is.

With that said, I understand why the USSC punted. If they had taken up the case, then they would have had no choice but to rule in Trump's favor or else violate their own precedent, not to mention make fools of themselves by putting their stamp of approval on a spoiled election. I'm not sure the country could not have come back from that.

The problem they faced, however, was that a ruling in favor of Trump would have set off months of rioting by the Dems' street animals that would have made their 2020 violence look like child's play. It's hard to comprehend how bad that could have been -- as in Civil War bad. I can see the Supremes weighing that outcome against four more years of a polarizing Trump regime, hobbled from the get-go, and deciding that punting to live to fight another day was the best out of a set of bad options. Staying out of it also kneecapped the Dems' disingenuous charges of a politicized court, which is, of course, in the court's interest.

By staying out of it, they opened the door for everything that R's are now doing on a statewide basis, which is fine by me -- political solutions to political problems are preferable to judicial decisions. Also, by not giving the tainted election their stamp of approval, the court left a cloud of illegitimacy hanging over Biden's head, which is both appropriate and a drag on his effectiveness.

Although the Dems wargamed it out correctly in the short run, both the country and the right might be better off for it in the long run than had the court stepped in. Like I said above, I can live with that.


[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 11/23/2021 12:36AM]