“its” – Logic’s Labor’s Lost

So SCOTUS has opined that Texas “has not demon­strat­ed a judi­cial­ly cog­niz­able inter­est in the man­ner in which anoth­er State con­ducts its elec­tions“.

A pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, to any giv­en US state that par­tic­i­pates in it, is more than just “its” elec­tion. It has pro­found con­se­quences for all oth­er states in the Union. Not at the very least qual­i­fy­ing the “its” in some way is like deny­ing the own­er of an apart­ment in a con­do­mini­um stand­ing to sue the own­er of anoth­er apart­ment who, in his part of the build­ing, is already far-advanced in under­tak­ing to make struc­tur­al changes that endan­ger the sta­bil­i­ty of the entire building.

Texas effec­tive­ly alleged, under­pinned by dozens of hours of (“pro­found­ly cred­i­ble”, in the words of a mem­ber of the Wisconsin leg­is­la­ture) tes­ti­mo­ny before rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the leg­is­la­tures of the four defen­dant states, that what took place in the four defen­dant states were in fact not “elec­tions” to speak of, because safe­guards to ensure that bal­lots received and count­ed were actu­al­ly from eli­gi­ble vot­ers were ille­gal­ly and uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly low­ered such that it was impos­si­ble to know who actu­al­ly “won” such “elec­tions”.

In Friday’s hear­ing in Wisconsin, the respon­si­ble elec­tion offi­cial even inad­ver­tent­ly admit­ted as much. When con­front­ed with the fact that the fol­lowed pro­ce­dure bla­tant­ly con­tra­dicts the Wisconsin elec­tion law, he just said: “All I can say is that the [low­er court] judge said this morn­ing it was okay.”

Happenings like these seri­ous­ly com­pro­mise the sta­tus of the US of being a con­sti­tu­tion­al republic.

We admit: We erred.

Gravely so. The cur­rent mem­bers of SCOTUS are not the intel­lec­tu­al­ly sov­er­eign, eagle-eyed and fear­less jurists for which we took them from pri­or, if admit­ted­ly more rou­tine, deci­sions, but instead appear to belong to that type of lawyer that every­one is used to mak­ing fun of, detached from both real­i­ty and the inner log­ic of the respec­tive matter.

No won­der then that high-pro­file politi­cians in Texas are now open­ly mus­ing about “seces­sion”.

Says Allan West, Texas Republican Party Chairman: “This deci­sion will have far reach­ing ram­i­fi­ca­tions for the future of our con­sti­tu­tion­al repub­lic. Perhaps law-abid­ing states should bond togeth­er and form a Union of states that will abide by the con­sti­tu­tion.”

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.