|With judges involved it will likely come down to whether there is strong enough evidence to compel their adjudicated application of government force toward amelioration.|
|Re: If DJT's team can prove in enough places that a concerted effort was launched to bollix the election, SCOTUS (ultimately) can rule that votes that weren't lawfully verified must be excluded. THAT would be a game-changer, and I think it will happen. -- TEEBONE||Post Reply||Top of thread||Forum|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
...so once again, we will be approaching an accelerated review of the Supremes. Lower court judges who want Biden to win will think nothing of throwing up as many blockades as possible to help.
It is in our time shamefully easy to find legalists who will go to their grave insisting that anything that is legal is therefore moral, so they will sleep like babies after trying to enable the subversion of an election.
The Natural Law states that "those who rule deserve to rule". Machiavelli explained that at length in The Prince. Then Trotskii, Bolivar and Alinsky rescripted it with their own perverse twist.
The difference of course is that Machiavelli was a (small "R") republican who was documenting the machinery of tyranny in The Prince as a warning/mockery, not advocating or excusing tyranny. As with other classic literature/philosophy (Nietzsche for instance) modern Marxists actually teach that brutal amorality is NECESSARY because they assume everyone is as obsessed with achieving dominion-at-any-cost AS THEY ARE THEMSELVES.
CG Jung again:It is impossible for anyone to conceive of a morality superior to their own.*
* What Jung meant was that no moralist recognizes a moral position as superior without adopting it as their own.
Modified by LateForLunch at Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 01:03:15
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Where am I? Original Top of thread||Previous | Next | Current page|