Is the Court our last Resort?
Submitted by Szaephod on Wed, 07/20/2016 - 6:57pm
This is just a question. The mounting evidence of rampant election fraud in this primary (on the 'D' side) has reached the level of incontrovertible. Isn't this begging to be heard on an exigent basis by the SCOTUS? Isn't this what they do? Isn't this what they did (granted as a referral from a lower court) in 2000? Isn't there a basis for introducing a case directly to the SCOTUS when the consequences are of national criticality?
Comments
What legal remedy do you imagine?
When an election fails one or more of the measures of fairness and democracy — particularly exit polls — the only remedy is to hold the elections again. This, in fact, happened in Austria a few weeks ago. The UN told Austria to hold the elections again (their president will not be recognized) and that's just what Austria is doing.
Since 1990, the US accommodates foreign election observers and UN members. The 2012 election was highly observed at polling places across the nation. Certainly they were looking for a repeat of the blatant fraud from the last re-election campaign of 2004.
In the case of a party primary, there is no guarantee of democracy. The Party and delegates are free to ignore the winner and nominate whomever they wish. Primary votes are not binding. Bernie knew if he could flip the delegates, Hillary's votes would be meaningless. The Parties comsider the primary to be a "Party Preference Poll." Not an election. It's pointless to contest a single primary, which is why it is never done.
The Supreme Court is not an investigative entity, and the court doesn't really have a role. The states control the nation's crazy-quilt of bizarre election laws. The states might look at an obvious irregularly. They might not. It's a political decision. In the end, they will pin the blame on a file clerk, who will promptly be fired. And that's it. There is no branch of the Federal government tasked with investigating democracy.
I've never lived in or experienced a democracy. But I've observed that the ultimate authority over election fraud is the rest of the world. The world, through the UN, can force new elections, with one exception. If the world determines, through post election polls, that the winner represented the will of the people, then the election is accepted regardless of irregularities. This happened in west Ukraine and Crimea after their referendum and reunification votes. Major polling companies, including Gallup and Pew, were involved. All survey results revealed that those referendums were overwhelmingly the will of the people, indeed in the 90 percent range. It doesn't stop the US from destroying that nation and harming its people, but the rest of the world is not going to participate in crushing the hearts and minds of the Ukranian people.
The US fraud was transparent this time and people saw it and reacted. But it strikes me that those outrageous election hacks were deliberate. It tells the people that they have no power. It remains to be seen if the people figure out they have all the power and actually use it in November to deliver a fatal blow to both Parties.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
Why isn't states' districting a model?
When shown to be fraudulent (in terms of disenfranchisement) the remedy was forced-redistricting, sometimes as implemented by the court. A case could easily (trivially, actually) be made that the primary process - though managed by the parties but implemented by the states - is part of the process of the presidential election, and thus if rigged undemocratically in such a way as to deny reasonable democratic choice in the general election, the court could stand a remedial role.
However, the most important point would be to bring the case win or lose, it would force the subject before the media and the public.
The spirit of party serves to enfeeble the Public Administration,
agitates with Jealousies and false alarms, and opens the door to corruption,
which finds access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.
George Washington
And, there you have it:
Forcing the American people to recognize the fraud is key. At the moment, they can cripple both parties at home and, certainly, internationally. A vote of "no confidence" coming from the people requires that the sitting government step down. Self-sabotage is the only way to express no confidence in the US. National governments rejected by the people are not seated at the table internationally until democracy is restored.
I agree with your theory about the legal seamlessness between the Primaries from the General election. But it remains that there is no venue in the US for such a complaint to be heard.
The American people do not have a right to vote in a Federal election. The US Constitution is too primitive to address such matters. The states are free to disenfranchise any of the people anytime they wish. In fact, the Supreme Court recently surrendered elections to the states, telling the states they will not impose election oversight on them. They gave the people Citizens United to show them that they are powerless and the Peoples' "voice" will not be protected or supported by the Federal government or the high courts.
It's pretty straightforward.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
Holy cow, I'd never before
Holy cow, I'd never before heard that the American people have no right to vote in a Federal election! What's up with calling America a democracy, then? And why have Americans been allowed to make the pretense of voting throughout the country's history? And just find this out now?
Clearly, a political revolution is called for, with the American people rising up and demanding democracy.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
That's why it's officially a "republic"
a Res Publica or Public Thing, which means anything and nothing.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
That's cool that you "heard" it.
I used to spend a lot of time dropping easily-verified "truths." I wrote essays about them, as well. I did a whole treatise on voting rights in the world. The US is one of the few labeled with "no voting rights." Folks simply could not "hear" this one. They had no memory of it. That astonished me when I finally figured it out. After awhile, it made sense. Propaganda had put a lot of gatekeepers in people's brains that deflected certain truths before they imprinted on the brain. Inconvenient truths, like this one can be risky. Denial is a fragile ship — and the sea of realization is a rough one.
Thar be dragons.
I've been enjoying your comments, Ellen.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
Seriously?
Considering that the so-called liberal Obama nominated a conservative to ensure that the Court's balance doesn't change, the only remedy we can expect is if one of our cases comes before the remaining 8 justices and they split 4-4.
At the other levels of the system, especially in Red States, they will do what they want and dare us to do anything about it.
So unless and until liberal-leaning people get into office, there is little hope there to sustain me.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Silly Bird, Courts are for
Silly Bird, Courts are for Coups not justice.
I mean just look at the last time the "supreme" court got involved in an election.
Sorry, comment below was for you Cephy
The spirit of party serves to enfeeble the Public Administration,
agitates with Jealousies and false alarms, and opens the door to corruption,
which finds access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.
George Washington
Silly Cephalopod, the Court has changed
And it was a 5/4 decision… we lost one that was agin' us (and the worst one at that).
And if we throw up our hands and say 'the court is hopelessly corrupt too', then, what?
What mechanisms of power-of-the-people are remaining open?
The voting process cannot be trusted.
The Deep State has corrupted most of our elected officials.
Can you think of a better bastion of hope than 4 (or 5) individuals that consider (at least most of the time) the law sacred?
Are the streets and torches a better recourse? Against militarized, federally coordinated police?
You're a thinking mollusk, tell us.
The spirit of party serves to enfeeble the Public Administration,
agitates with Jealousies and false alarms, and opens the door to corruption,
which finds access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.
George Washington