This one is a little confusing because while it is often used to refer to an impossible restoration of some sort by the military, it could also refer to any irreversible choice, such as the one made in the early hours of November fourth.
These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
Thomas provides some cover for the Court’s dereliction of duty by prefacing his analysis with an assertion unsupported except perhaps relative to some narrow claim:
That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election.
The Duran suggests that the court not taking the cases and leaving these issues undecided will cause trouble in the future, but that argument presupposes that the goal should be to provide clear rules under which a democracy can operate. It seems more likely that confirming that the courts are closed to election challenges will cause the least trouble under the form of governance that actually exists.
Theoretically, it’s possible that a system designed to be gamed and abused won’t be. But a party concerned about the integrity of the system wouldn’t expend so much effort making it easier to rig elections; it would do the opposite.
Far from seeing any effort to explain, all I see is an enlivened and merciless push to ram through the results while censoring and slandering anyone who asks questions or points out irregularities. Either they don’t have explanations, or they don’t care what we think. Or both.
There is something to be said—from the point of view of the powerful—for just ramming things through and explaining nothing. It’s a clear demonstration of who’s boss. It demoralizes the other side. And it’s nearly certain to change the system permanently in ways that benefit the ruling class for as long as they can keep it going.
That may well work in securing the White House this time. But if they just ram this through without explaining what really happened, then the legitimacy not just of our electoral system but of our entire government will have suffered an extreme, and possibly fatal, blow.
Curtis Yarvin reflects on the state of things soon after the ballot wizardry.
Ultimately, I am glad Trump lost, because Trump was more than just a liar—he was a lie. As soon as he accepted the fraud that he was actually in charge of the government, he became complicit in a fraud against his own supporters. They could never understand why he didn’t “do something” about this, that, or the other thing.
He could have told them why; he could have even worked to change that. He was given the choice between looking and feeling important, and realizing and revealing that he wasn’t important. He chose as he did. Given that he did, his defeat at the hands of the ballot wizards of the Midwest may have been legal injustice—but it was divine justice.
Time publishes an article that seems to be someone letting us know that they know that we know, and that they don’t care that we know. Or perhaps to let others that don’t know know just what they want them to know rather than have information lead them to know what they don’t want them to know.
The collapse of the USA will make the collapse of the USSR look like a stroll through a leafy park and a boat ride on a placid pond. I’ve been saying this for 15 years now. My message is still there, for all those who wish to understand what’s been happening and to keep their sanity.