I saw mounds of evidence. Seen soo many irregularities. 2000 Mules etc...I usually have an answer for most topics, but is stumped on this one. Can any of you patriots answer this question?...Why didn't the courts take on the lawsuits if there is was soo much evidence?...There were quite a bit of Trump appointed judges that rejected the lawsuits...WHY!???
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
The courts ruled that there was no standing - meaning even if they reviewed all of the evidence and found it true, they basically said that the court had no legal means of providing a remedy.
Now, any judge could have had the courage to say "nahhh, fuck that, i will make a stand here". But likely, that would have led to some REAL consequences, up to and including death. So many just ducked their heads, and went off of "no standing" as means of dodging the potential chaos.
In more than a few ways, it was similar to Bleeding Kansas - where the South committed a great deal of voter fraud, and killed dozens to ensure Kansas became a Slave State. Rather than reverse the fraud, it was largely accepted that it would be better to allow this for now than to start a full on civil war at a stage no one was truly prepared for (my interpretation, anyway).
That set the stage for the election of 1860, when Lincoln was elected with the mandate to clean up the corruption that lead to fraud (and why he ran on stopping the spread of slavery the way it had been happening - largely illegally).
Seeing the writing on the wall, the Democrat South revolted, and the Civil War began.
So we will see what happens now that Trump has been elected on a largely similar platform.