Democrat lawyer confesses at Supreme Court: Only one party can rig elections
Democrats’ Betrayal of Democracy
There was never a purer demonstration of how traitorous Democrats are about “defending democracy,” or whatever corny phrase they like to use, than what just happened at the Supreme Court.
At the very end of oral arguments in the Colorado case determining whether the state had the right to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot, Justice Samuel Alito asked the state’s solicitor general, Shannon Stevenson, what’s going to happen if other states “retaliate” by, say, removing Joe Biden from theirs. Elected officials in at least six states have suggested it as a course of action.
It’s an obvious question that Stevenson either wasn’t prepared for or knew it would expose her state’s case as a tragic joke. “Your honor, I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately, that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment,” she said. “Courts will review those decisions, this court may review some of them.”
What she said next should have resulted in her being laughed out of the room. ”But,” she said, “I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case.”
Alito challenged Stevenson on whether she thought the suggestion of retaliation, coming from places like Florida, Arizona, and Georgia, all potentially swing states in the next election, was truly unfounded.
“Um, I think we have processes—” she said, before being interrupted.
“We should proceed on the assumption that it’s not a serious threat?” said Alito.
Stevenson said there are “institutions in place” that should “handle” such matters. Asked to specify which institutions, she said, “Our states, their own electoral rules, the administrators who enforce those rules.” She also said voters would have to rely on ”courts.”
In essence, to believe this entire case by Democrats is an effort to safeguard democracy, rather than rig an election, is to trust that Republicans would never dare try doing the same. If they did, it would ruin Democrats’ plot. Alternatively, if such threats were made good, we should expect enough opposition to render them neutral.
In fairness, a lot of Republicans are naive morons who time and time again respond to Democrats politically kicking their teeth in by saying, “Well, if we respond, we’re no better than them.” So, Stevenson’s is not a terrible gamble.
But there’s a long way to go before the election. Attitudes change, and they will rapidly if Colorado is successful and other Democrat states decide to follow the example of unilaterally determining Trump is ineligible to run for a second term, all because he rejected the accuracy of election results (as Democrats do on a routine basis).
The media’s fixation on the Colorado case has focused solely on the legal merits of the case, when the more urgent matter has always been not what happens if it’s ruled legal to keep Trump off a ballot, but what it means for future democratic elections if he is.
There’s a reason until recently it was not only abnormal but unthinkable in America for one political party to use the justice system to exterminate its opponent. The reason is self-evident— mutually assured destruction. If they can do it to us, we can do it to them. It’s what they do in the Congo and every other war-torn state across the globe.
Alito intentionally invoked that perilous likelihood. Stevenson’s response — “I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously” — showed just how seriously Democrats take “defending democracy.”
In what ways does the dismissal of the suggestion of retaliation by states like Florida, Arizona, and Georgia in the case at the Supreme Court undermine the public’s trust in the electoral process
Democrats have been claiming to defend democracy, but their recent actions at the Supreme Court demonstrate otherwise. The case in question revolves around whether Colorado had the right to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito posed a hypothetical scenario, asking what would happen if other states retaliated by removing Joe Biden from their ballots. This possibility has been suggested by elected officials in at least six states.
The response from Colorado’s solicitor general, Shannon Stevenson, was both unprepared and revealing. She suggested that we should have faith in our system and trust that people will follow their election processes appropriately. She also mentioned that courts will review decisions related to these matters. However, she dismissively stated that the court should not take these threats seriously in its resolution of the case.
Justice Alito questioned whether the suggestion of retaliation by states such as Florida, Arizona, and Georgia should be considered unfounded. However, Stevenson failed to provide a satisfactory response. She simply mentioned that there are institutions in place to handle such matters, including states, their own electoral rules, administrators who enforce those rules, and courts. In other words, she seemed to suggest that voters should rely on these institutions to protect democracy.
However, this argument is flawed. It implies that Democrats are genuinely concerned about safeguarding democracy, while Republicans would never dare to manipulate an election. It ignores the possibility that both parties could engage in such tactics. If Democrats truly cared about democracy, they would acknowledge the valid concerns raised by Justice Alito and take them seriously.
This case highlights the betrayal of democracy by Democrats. Their actions only serve to further polarize the nation and weaken the public’s trust in the electoral process. It is crucial for both parties to prioritize the integrity of elections and ensure that any attempts to manipulate them are thoroughly investigated and addressed. Only then can we have faith in our democracy and truly defend its principles.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
