Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@ Bear Klein:
The “Ostrich” does not stick it’s head into the ground…How would it not suffocate. Closer observation has shown that it has a habit of laying it’s head and neck flat on the ground if it senses danger. What’s left visible doesn’t look like any living creature to a predator.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Don’t you need to provide EVIDENCES in order to appeal?
Took several weeks to get evidences.
The “whole world” will refuse to give access to evidences!
Only now “friendly countries are willing to supply evidences about China? or the USSR? I don’t remember which of the two!
Actually we should ask if I do not like reality I can I pretend it does not exist and then it does not exist. The Ostrich is a great example.
Trump’s legal team, including Giuliani, made a very serious error in filing their cases in the lowest courts first and then working their way up to the Supreme Court.They should have realized that there was no chance whatsoever that any court lower than the Supreme Court would either be hopelessly biased against Trump, either because they were or democrats or establishment never-trumper Republicans, or because they were too scared to cross the local and state poiticians.In some states, judges are elected for fixed terms, not appointed for life. These judges would never risk crossing the local politicians of either party.
Trump should have appealed directly to the Supreme Court immediately after the election, in his own name. One of the rationales that the Supremes used for rejecting the appeal of the 18 attorneys-general was that they were not affected personally by the election, hence had no “standing.” An extremely dubious rationale to be sure, but one that it would be very difficult to apply to Trump personally. He definitely has suffered personally from the rigging of the election, since it deprived him of an office of great value–the Presidency.
At some point in the course of the Trump teams’ appeals, either the Supreme Court or some lower court ruled that if Trump was convinced that the “relaxed” laws governing registration, voting and vote-counting were unconstitutional, he should have challenged these laws in court before, not after, the election. They ruled that it would not be legal or fair to throw out the election after the fact. Whether this legal argument is valid or not (I think it isn’t), from the point of view of legal-political strategy, Trump should have demanded that the Supreme Court issue an injunction against these unconstitutional laws, such as the use of drop-boxes, registrations and votes without signatures, etc., well before the election. If he had done this, the Federal courts might have ruled in his favor. After the election, it would have been easy to mobiize mobs to riot in “protest” against a Democratic Party victory that appeared to be a “done deal.” Obviously this was one motive for the courts to throw out the Trump campaign’s suits.