Quote:
Originally Posted by psyang
Listening to the debate, it sounds like the Republicans were basing their objection on one argument - that PA made changes to their voting laws outside of state legislators, which goes against the constitution. It wasn't about allegations of voter fraud (at least, not directly) or other conspiracy theories, but only about upholding the constitution.
|
yes, but what the courts ruled on several variations of this argument was the legal equivalent of
'you didn't object to any of this before the election when you should of so don't come running to us to change things after you've lost'
And once again these are arguments that are settled at the state level in the states courts, for a party that is supposed to be all about states rights the idea that when they need to they are happy to tell the states to go pound salt and they want to stick their nose into things is pathetic.
This has nothing to do with upholding the constitution, that's the courts job and they clearly said,
'nothing to see here, move along', 60 odd times, what this was really about was a mix of utterly reprehensible political grandstanding by ######bags trying to set up a future run and equally reprehensible and also dangerous pushing at the limits of what they could get away with, that maybe the fence would fail and they would end up being able to over turn the election and subvert democracy if enough players were prepared to go along and no one stopped them, every one of them is a traitor in their hearts, every last one of them, they all know that the US is demographically moving away from them and that the GOP as it is at present is doomed, this was their answer, end democracy.