I wouldn't describe the litigation in the terms that you do.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I'm not a Trump insider, so I have no idea just how much good faith or bad faith there is in the legitimacy of the complaints.
Just common sense.
When a bunch of liars claim something you should assume they are lying.
Especially when they are fundraising off of it but spending the money elsewhere.
Some of these hearings are also public, so you can see them fail in real time.
My comment about protesting being good politics is independent of whether the legal claims will succeed or have merit.
Fair.
Of course, no one has barred him from pursuing his complaints. I was commenting about the politics of discouraging or trying to intimidate him out of pursuing his complaints, which many media outlets and some politicians have been trying to do.
The Republican position is very clearly "anything that is technically legal is fair if we do it and unfair if you do it", yes.
I understand that criticism of their bad faith and dishonesty is considered unfair by the GOP and particularly by the President but he should grow a thicker skin and stop being such a snowflake.
Too silly to respond to. How much time and money would you spend litigating election anomalies in an election you won?
And the failure to do that encouraged the Republicans to just try harder to steal things. I agree. We should really spend more on election integrity protection.
Not true, especially in states that lean Democrat. He brags about Federal appointments, but of course the turnover represents a small fraction of the total of sitting federal judges, nevermind State appointed and elected judges.
I will give you that some of these may be in state court, and not in Federal court. That you don't care and have expressly stated the idea is to get to the court you feel most completely rigged in your favor stands.
Your post just proves you are lumping posters together without regard for what they have posted. I have said a number of times that law itself is just another manifestation of politics, and rightfully so. That doesn't mean the legal system doesn't operate differently and independently of the other branches of government, or that it operates without ANY integrity. If that statement isn't clear enough, then the concept is too subtle for elaboration here on an internet forum.
You are the one who said they need to get to the Supreme Court due to the advantage they have there and all lower courts where you can't control the outcome should be perfunctory.
That said, we agree that while the courts are very political, they are political under a different set of constraints than other branches of government.
