J
JanR
Guest
First, it’s the duty of states to enforce their own laws.
Secondly, the court’s decision to deny enforcement when the states wouldn’t step in was a cop-out. It wouldn’t have been “interfering” with the states’ rights to pass their own election laws. The court wouldn’t have been trying to overthrow those laws. It simply would have provided proper action against the breaking of those laws and proper redress of grievances to those adversely affected by the illegal denials of access. The lower courts should have taken care of that, but since they didn’t, appeal to a higher court became necessary, and that court refused to do its duty.
Thirdly, when a lower judge issues an order that is blatantly defied, there needs to be serious consequences. Too many powerful entities today feel they can just ignore a judge’s order and thumb their noses at it. The more powerful the entity, the more they get away with that. It needs to stop.
The example was when the lower court judge ordered that sixty poll watcher from both parties had to be allowed meaningful access for monitoring ballots, six feet away behind a barrier, and then the election people just moved all their counters and machinery further across the room so that the poll watchers STILL couldn’t see anything. That was a blatant violation of the judge’s order, and swift legal action should have been taken. Court orders get largely ignored these days because people get away with violating them.
Unenforced laws are no better than non-existent laws. If the states aren’t going to enforce their own laws and make these entities comply with them, they might as well wipe those laws off of their books, because lack of enforcement has rendered them useless and ineffective.
These incidences of provable fraud and the refusal of our legal system to remedy them is just one more example of nonexistent justice in this country. Or, of two-tiered justice whereby the law is applied one way to one group or party and a different way to another, thus voiding equal application and equal justice under the law.
We are becoming a lawless nation, as a result.
The decision by the higher court to refuse to rule on the exclusion of legitimate poll watchers from meaningful access will only encourage this lawbreaking in future elections. Once they find they can get away with it, they’ll do it again and again to the watchers of the opposing party.
The court copped out. Shame on them!
Secondly, the court’s decision to deny enforcement when the states wouldn’t step in was a cop-out. It wouldn’t have been “interfering” with the states’ rights to pass their own election laws. The court wouldn’t have been trying to overthrow those laws. It simply would have provided proper action against the breaking of those laws and proper redress of grievances to those adversely affected by the illegal denials of access. The lower courts should have taken care of that, but since they didn’t, appeal to a higher court became necessary, and that court refused to do its duty.
Thirdly, when a lower judge issues an order that is blatantly defied, there needs to be serious consequences. Too many powerful entities today feel they can just ignore a judge’s order and thumb their noses at it. The more powerful the entity, the more they get away with that. It needs to stop.
The example was when the lower court judge ordered that sixty poll watcher from both parties had to be allowed meaningful access for monitoring ballots, six feet away behind a barrier, and then the election people just moved all their counters and machinery further across the room so that the poll watchers STILL couldn’t see anything. That was a blatant violation of the judge’s order, and swift legal action should have been taken. Court orders get largely ignored these days because people get away with violating them.
Unenforced laws are no better than non-existent laws. If the states aren’t going to enforce their own laws and make these entities comply with them, they might as well wipe those laws off of their books, because lack of enforcement has rendered them useless and ineffective.
These incidences of provable fraud and the refusal of our legal system to remedy them is just one more example of nonexistent justice in this country. Or, of two-tiered justice whereby the law is applied one way to one group or party and a different way to another, thus voiding equal application and equal justice under the law.
We are becoming a lawless nation, as a result.
The decision by the higher court to refuse to rule on the exclusion of legitimate poll watchers from meaningful access will only encourage this lawbreaking in future elections. Once they find they can get away with it, they’ll do it again and again to the watchers of the opposing party.
The court copped out. Shame on them!