The Courts' Dismissal of Trump's Cases Proves He Won the Election


Out of all the people who insist that Trump didn't win, very few are willing to have a civil conversation about it.


And the few who are willing to talk about it invariably rest their cases on one argument:


"The courts have *rejected* all his lawsuits. Therefore, his lawsuits have no merit, and the evidence contained within them is weak, unsubstantiated, or invalid. Without valid evidence of fraud, there was therefore was no fraud, and the election was conducted fairly."


First of all, this argument constitutes a clear appeal to authority (argumentum ad authoritatum), in which a person outsources the responsibility to evaluate the evidence, from themselves onto the Annointed Ones who wear special robes.



"It's usually a bad type of argument. However, there are some debates in which it may have validity. After all, experts are right sometimes. Maybe even a bit more than laypeople. So if a court - especially the SCOTUS - finds a case to be un-meritorious enough to reject it, doesn't that count for *SOMETHING*?"


Well hang on. "Rejected", is not a legal term. Are you talking about "ruling against", or "dismissal"?


In almost all of the lawsuits, including most importantly the Supreme Court lawsuits, the judges did not rule against Trump. They dismissed his cases without ruling on them.


Without hearing them.


They've all "thrown out" the president's cases, mostly without bothering to grant actual hearings.


Reminder: The word "dismissed" means they didn't give it a hearing

One judge, in Wisconsin, even had what appears to be an emotional breakdown, stating, after declining to hear the case:


"What you want is you want us to overturn this election so your king can stay in power, and that is so un-American but for you to say that anyone in Wisconsin engaged in fraud, but for you to perpetuate that fallacy [Editor's note: how does she know the fraud is a fallacy if she hasn't heard the case?] on the people of Wisconsin and the people of the United States of America in what has been called the most significant election in our lifetime is nothing short of shameful.”


"Shameful." For bringing a case to her.


Shameful? Really?


We've been watching for years as people on the Leftward side of the spectrum became increasingly censorious - as they increasingly relied on preventing debate as a means to win a debate.


At first it was only in Tumblr forums. Then it spread to Facebook and Reddit. Then all of social media.


We warned people that this problem would only get bigger and metastasize into a wider and wider range of institutions.


First, politics. Then mainstream media. Then, in 2020, in regards to the "pandemic", academia started doing this, and censoring dissenting scientists.


And now, finally, judges are doing it, in their official capacities, from the bench.


"OK but still that doesn't PROVE anything. Just because some judges have such bad TDS that they're having mental breakdowns at the thought of hearing cases on behalf of Trump, doesn't *automatically* mean that the cases themselves have actual merit."


Actually, yes it does. It does prove that.


"Huh? What kind of crazy talk is this?"


Let's assume, for the moment, that you are right! The evidence really is all bogus.


All of Trump's cases. All of the evidence. Completely without the tiniest shred of merit.


OK?


That'll be your free Bingo square, for the time being.


Happy?


"OK. Keep going."


Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but all this really does is confirm that the courts ought to hear it, to get it out in the open, so everyone can see clearly how flawed it is, to put the matter to rest.



If the fraud allegations are false, then the most appropriate thing to do is hear the cases. In courtroom argumentation, the whole thing can be laid out, bare, for everyone to see. No more secrecy and speculation.


Why are we needing to speculate? Don't you find it odd that we need to do all this guesswork? Why won't the courts just hear the damn cases, and let the public see what the arguments are? Why hush it up? What benefit could there possibly be to suppressing it and not even allowing a conversation on it to take place?


"Because the cases are frivolous! The Supreme Court doesn't have time! They're very busy people!"


They don't have time for a case brought by the President of the United States? Is he not important enough?


"But he would just keep filing case after case after case, and it would never end! They have to put their foot down SOMEWHERE."


"Somewhere," meaning "at the very beginning, before the process even starts?"


"But it would just keep going and going. These crazy MAGA people would just keep coming up with more cases. It would drag on forever!"


No, not "forever." It would drag on, at most, until January 20th.


There's a time limit of 79 days, from Nov 3 to Jan 20.


Why can't there be a discussion for, at most, 79 days?


Half of the country believes our elections are no longer legitimate. The bedrock of our entire democracy has been corrupted. This is big. If half the country no longer has confidence in our most fundamental institution, how can this constitute anything less than an existential crisis for the nation? What "other business" could the judges have that's more important than addressing this?


If the elections really are clean, and the fraud allegations really are false, then the best way to prove that would be in court - in the SCOTUS - with all the evidence laid out, and all the journalists reporting and analyzing it. If your side is right, that would put the rumors to rest, and the country could heal.


Conversely, if they refuse to hear the cases, it keeps the questions alive, and gives them an ever-increasing amount of juice, from the Streisand-Effect, in which the more you try to hush something up, the more people take an interest in it. The more the courts bury the questions about the legitimacy of the election, the more people will latch on to these questions, undermining faith in our elections and in the legitimacy of the supposedly "incoming administration."



And the judges know this. Come on, they know this. You can't possibly convince me that they don't know this.



The judges all know that transparency is the key to unity and healing, and they know that obstruction, suppression, and evasion could lead to a civil war before the demented pervert and the prison-labor lady even get sworn in. They know this.


So why aren't they hearing the cases?


It makes zero sense.


Unless...


...unless there WAS fraud. And there IS evidence. And they're bought. They're compromised. Someone's intimidating them.



Or bribing them.



Or has kompromat on them.



Or all three.



That is the only logical explanation for their choice to evade the cases. No other makes sense.


"But the evidence is all crap! It's fake! It's invalid! I looked at it! I read the dockets! I read the petitions! I read the dismissal statements! I'm a lawyer, so I understand it! It really IS all bogus evidence! It really is!"



And all you're doing is proving me right that the courts should take up the cases.


Make no mistake about this:


The righter you are that the evidence is invalid and unsupported and the cases are bogus, the righter I am that the courts should take them up and hear them.


You being right that the evidence is easily refutable... makes me right that the courts ought to allow it to be presented.


The easier it is to refute, the more reason for the courts to have open debates on it.


So you're kinda trapped, logically. You have to admit either:


  1. The evidence is valid, and the Democrats really did cheat.

  2. The evidence is bogus, in which case the courts are acting extremely weirdly, and jeopardizing their long-term respectability in order to avoid debating an "easily refutable" set of accusations.


Number 2 does not make sense at all, logically.


Number 1 is the only option that makes sense.


Our governments have 3 branches. If the executive and legislative branches can be infiltrated and corrupted, why can't the judicial branch be corrupted too? If you can buy a politician, why can't you buy a judge?


Obviously, you can. If you have enough money. And many people do. And have done so. And this can only mean one thing:


The courts have been infiltrated, by the same enemy that has corrupted academia, the medical field, the scientific community, the entertainment industry, the corporate newsmedia, and all the rest of our society's institutions.


And Trump won the election.





7 views0 comments
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Subscribe to the Earth Party weekly newsletter!

To donate,

visit our Patreon Page.

 

Questions?  Comments?

Email: TheEarthParty@outlook.com

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now