Printable View
Not because they weren't going to prove the DNC defrauded their donors, illegally rigging the nominations, etc.-because they were going to prove that - but on basic standing grounds. I teach standing each semester as part of my basic business law course and this will be a good one to use.
Every time somebody criticizes President Trump, remember the forces on the other side...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...t-against-dnc/
Most people who support Trump, not all but many and IMO most, have done so not b/c his tactics and behavior have any appeal, but rather in spite of all his failings b/c he has promised to "drain the swamp."
Many on both sides of the political spectrum and many independents see the system itself as the threat, two parties and an entrenched Washington system that is corrupt and obsessed only with itself and not with the nation or its people. Thus the big run by an aging, obscure socialist and a real estate mogul and reality TV star against the two parties.
ANd it's also part of the reason we're seeing the mess in Washington in his administration. A lot of it is on Trump and his style or lack of any style, but it's also simply the case that the GOP leadership has no more desire to drain the swamp than the Democrats. The individuals in both parties have made their entire careers on this system and the power concentrated in Washington. The last thing either side wants is to hand all that power back and stop the flow of money and influence and power into Washington. That's not to excuse Trump's behavior and inability to govern, but he's not going to get anyone covering for him either b/c he's not "their guy".
As to the case, I find this very interesting. I haven't read the decision and quotes are so misleading, but is it a question of standing for this group or in general that there simply is no one with standing to bring such a fraud case?
Usually in standing it's an issue of being a harmed/affected party, so could Sanders himself theoretically bring it?
I'm generally troubled by the idea that a political party or any similar entity could commit such acts and the judiciary's position is that it's simply not a judicial matter, which seems to be this decision.
There are some things that Constitutionally that is the case. For example I agree with Dershowitz that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime but that the remedy is Constituionally spelled out as impeachment and removal. Likewise Congressman and Senators are the same way, even a criminal conviction does not automatically cause their removal but they must be censured and removed if they weren't to resign themselves.
But if the DNC or GOP can just do anything it wants and its members have no legal recourse, that's just another layer insulating the corruption of those leaders and staffs.
Lots of Bernie supporters are backing a "Demexit.".
Any upstart elected officials, senators or representatives, who threaten the old gaurd are quickly weeded out by the likes of Pelosi, McConnell, etc, this heirarchy of old washington power.. Any time an honest to goodness person of change gets elected they either fail to advance due to no party support because those in leadership dont want real change or they morph into one of the old guard themselves to acquire the status and power needed to stay in Washington. Its the one big mistake the founding fathers made, term limits on congress...well actually term limits in general. Of course they never imagined a scenario where individuals would use a free democracy to obtain wealth and permenant power, which is odd because they did such an outstanding job foreseeing so many other potentual problemsQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN