Election 2020

Ted Cruz's Eagerness To Fight Trump's Legal Battles Epitomizes the GOP's Complete Lack of Principles

By his own account, the Texas senator is committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully.

|

Ted Cruz will not get a chance to argue that the Supreme Court should stop Joe Biden from taking office by overriding the presidential election results in four battleground states. But the Texas senator's eagerness to do so speaks volumes about the extent to which the Republican Party has abandoned the principles it once claimed to defend, instead organizing itself around the whims of a president who stands for nothing but his own personal interests.

Donald Trump personally asked Cruz, who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995 and argued nine cases before the Supreme Court as the solicitor general of Texas, to represent the state if the justices agreed to hear Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's last-ditch lawsuit challenging election procedures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The senator agreed, his spokesman told The Texas Tribune. Cruz had earlier said he stood ready to argue another pro-Trump lawsuit, in which Rep. Mike Kelly (R–Pa.) maintained that Pennsylvania's election results should be set aside because the state legislature had violated the Constitution by expanding absentee voting.

Both of those lawsuits, which relied on seemingly contradictory legal theories, were unanimously rejected by a Supreme Court that includes six Republican appointees, half of them nominated by Trump himself. Last week the justices declined to take up the Pennsylvania case in a one-sentence order that was issued without a recorded dissent. On Friday, the Court turned away Paxton's lawsuit. Seven justices said Texas "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, thought the Court was obliged to let Paxton file his bill of complaint under its original jurisdiction in cases involving interstate disputes. But they added that they "would not grant other relief." The upshot, as Damon Root notes, was that "Texas and Trump lost 9–0."

Despite Trump's avowed belief that the Court would intervene to give him a second term, the justices were uniformly unimpressed by the legal arguments for doing so, which was hardly surprising. Kelly's lawsuit was based on the premise that Pennsylvania legislators, who according to Paxton have "exclusive and plenary authority" to decide how presidential electors are selected, did not have the authority to loosen restrictions on voting by mail. Paxton's lawsuit was widely derided by legal scholars as an ill-conceived, poorly reasoned, and unprecedented attempt to reverse the outcome of a presidential election by asserting that one state has standing to sue others when it disapproves of their election rules.

Election law expert Rick Hasen called Paxton's case "a press release masquerading as a lawsuit." A brief from conservative legal scholars and Republican politicians condemned it as "a mockery of federalism and separation of powers." Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler warned that Paxton was pushing "a radical argument that would make a mockery of Article II's delegation of power to state legislatures and upend core elements of our federal system." Princeton political scientist Keith Whittington worried that Republican officials who backed the lawsuit were "rushing to throw over constitutional and democratic principles in an effort to curry favor with a president who refuses to accept the reality of an electoral loss."

Christopher Carr, Georgia's Republican attorney general, noted that Paxton was asking the Court to "transfer Georgia's electoral powers to the federal judiciary," adding that "respect for federalism and the constitutional design prohibits that transfer of power." Another Republican attorney general, Ohio's Dave Yost, warned that "the relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that the States are sovereigns, free to govern themselves."

Despite those obvious dangers, 17 other Republican attorneys general, and more than 100 Republican members of Congress joined Trump in backing Paxton's lawsuit. But Cruz's eagerness to jump on this batty bandwagon is especially striking because of his legal background, his pose as a diehard defender of the Constitution, and his personal history with Trump.

"This suit that was filed by my colleague from Texas is uniquely unserious," Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania's Democratic attorney general, told CNN's Chris Cuomo last week. "It is based on bizarro conspiracy theories. It is based on issues that have been litigated and dismissed." When Cuomo asked about Cruz, "who is supposedly a legal genius," Shapiro replied, "He has proven himself to be neither a genius in the law [nor] a genius, frankly, in terms of an EQ. He is a sad sack."

Shapiro may have meant to question Cruz's intelligence rather than his interpersonal and communication skills. Either way, he went too easy on Cruz, who surely is smart enough and legally knowledgeable enough to recognize the weakness of Paxton's claims. Yet Cruz was champing at the bit to take on a case that his state's current solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins, did not want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

Last week, Cruz's fellow Texas senator, Republican John Cornyn, told reporters he was "skeptical" of the lawsuit's prospects and called its implications "frightening." But Cornyn offered praise for Cruz's legal acumen and skills. "I can't think of a better advocate than Senator Cruz," he said. "As you know, he's got great experience arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States as a former solicitor general of Texas. And that's just on top of his private-sector career after he clerked for William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court." Cruz's "great experience" makes his support for the lawsuit all the more troubling.

Cruz's current role as a Trump toady stands in sharp contrast with his criticism of Trump in 2016. After Trump claimed that Cruz, who was then vying with him for the Republican presidential nomination, "stole" the Iowa caucus through "fraud," Cruz dismissed that fact-free accusation as "yet another #Trumpertantrum." Yet here he is lending credence to the even wilder, equally unsubstantiated claims of election fraud that Trump has been pushing for more than a month.

After Trump, who had dubbed Cruz "Lyin' Ted," implicated the senator's father in John F. Kennedy's assassination (yes, that really happened), Cruz was notably angrier. "I'm going to do something I haven't done for the entire campaign," he said in May 2016. "I'm going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump. This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies, practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying….Whatever he does, he accuses everybody else of doing. The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist—a narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen…..Everything in Donald's world is about Donald….The man is utterly amoral. Morality does not exist for him….Donald is a bully….Donald is cynically exploiting that anger [at the political establishment], and he is lying to his supporters. Donald will betray his supporters on every issue."

At the Republican National Convention that July, Cruz elicited boos by conspicuously declining to endorse the party's nominee, instead telling Americans to "vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution." Cruz did not publicly say he would vote for Trump until late September, when he reluctantly endorsed him as the lesser of two evils.

By his own account, Cruz is now committed to defending an amoral, narcissistic, unprincipled, utterly dishonest bully, even when that means reinforcing the fantasy that Trump won the election and backing constitutionally reckless efforts to override the actual result. Whatever credit the Cruz of 2016 deserved for telling the truth about Trump has dissolved in a bath of cowardly sycophancy drawn by a politician who is terrified of alienating the president's supporters.

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2024 and may seek his party's presidential nomination that year, has a strong political interest in placating Trump fans. But if voters took to heart Cruz's advice about supporting candidates they trust to defend the Constitution, he would lose handily in either race.

NEXT: Hollywood Still Can’t Figure Out How to Adapt The Stand

Election 2020 Campaigns/Elections Voting Fraud Conspiracy Theories Federalism Separation of Powers Supreme Court Ted Cruz Donald Trump Joe Biden

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

590 responses to “Ted Cruz's Eagerness To Fight Trump's Legal Battles Epitomizes the GOP's Complete Lack of Principles

  1. “a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully.”

    That’s right fuck the Fuck the Constitution!

    1. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business. Here what I do,.for more information……… USA ONLINE JOBS

    2. Having a TOTAL lack of ANY principles, other than. “POWER for MEEE and MINE”, is a cunts-tits-utionally given RIGHT, as given to us by Government Almighty! Damned straight!

      All ye mere slaves, BOW DOWN before MEEE and My Mighty Donald! Mere peons, all of ye!

      1. Was it hard at first to swallow the poop, because of your gag reflex? Or were you a natural?

        1. He rolls in it too!

          1. Interesting!

            1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.CMs Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link………

              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-► Home Profit System

          2. Ted Cruz’s Eagerness to Fight Trump’s Legal Battles Epitomizes the GOP’s Complete Lack of Principles

            unreason’s eagerness to fight the Party of slavery’s legal battles epitomizes the Commie propagandist’s complete lack of principles.

            1. It would be nice if there were actually any libertarian article writers at this supposed libertarian site. Instead we get warmed-over shit that looks like it came from a flunkie at the DNC.

              1. JOIN PART TIME JOBS
                Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Agh Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
                COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

    3. Jacob Sullum should turn in his Libertarian card. It takes a spectacularly totalitarian person to decide that whether a person deserves good legal representation depends on such subjective personal qualities.

      Because, obviously, the Constitution that dictates that state legislatures should direct how electors are chosen REALLY meant local executives and unelected judges should direct that instead.

      1. No one said that Trump doesn’t deserve legal representation because he is a narcissistic clown. That is you inventing a strawman.

        1. Hey look the dumb cunt Jeff showed up.

          1. Looks like the tRumptards have hit the angry phase.

            1. Looks like the DNCCP shits still haven’t come up with a better insult.

              Now throw your arms up to the sky and scream, “DRUUUUUUMPF!”

              1. Well, if the shoe fits. tRumptards literally ignore facts and continue on the completely unfounded “They stole the election” tantrum. So yeah, tRumptards.

                1. It takes five words to refute you: Four years of “Russian collusion”.

                  1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required.ATm Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link………

                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-► Home Profit System

                2. DRRUUUUUUUUMMMMPPFFFF!!!!

                  RHEEEEEEEE!

                3. Because the voting machine in Michigan had a SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT FAILURE RATE when the federal standard is 1 out of 125,000.

                  Oh, did you not read that audit because it blows your stupid shit argument all to hell?

        2. Correct; you’re whining that Trump doesn’t deserve legal representation because you know it’ll expose the fraud and corruption that your Marxist Cult depends on to survive.

          Of course, you dress it up as a “Drumpf Hitler Badman” straw man because you’re a lying, narcissistic sociopath piece of shit.

          1. Trump deserves whatever legal representation that is willing to freely work for him. If Cruz wants to sell the last remaining shred of his soul in order to do it, then by all means, Cruz should not be prevented from doing so. It doesn’t stop me, or Sullum, or anyone else, however, from pointing out how much of an intellectual whore that it makes Cruz.

            1. Piss off Jeff and don’t come back until you have a logical argument… and that includes your fifty other sockpuppets.

              1. Looks like you’re having a bad day. So sorry to hear that.

                1. Really, Jeff? Because YOU’RE the one who literally spent the entirety of the last three days trolling through these comments to bitch and whine across for four sock puppey accounts or whatever the fuck your kiddy-diddling ass is up to now.

                2. Whine some more, shit-eater.

                  1. He’s just a sophist little bitch, but to be fair, Squirrelly is the actual shit eater here.

              2. Oh look, the conservative cancel culture is trying to shut down one of the few libertarian voices on the forum.

                Tell me, are you proud to be no different (other than party affiliation) than the college kids who shut down conservative speakers?

                1. Go smoke a joint and fuck a prostitute. That's what you guys are all about anyways.

                  1. Already on it.

                    1. Shocked face that sarc has to pay for it.

                    2. Narrator’s voice: “…but it turned out that sarcasmic was the very prostitute he fucked”

                  2. Actually Libertarians aren’t all about smoking weed, we’re about not having the government arresting people who smoke weed. The complete opposite of Kamehameharris.

                2. Lol. God damn. Funniest thing sarcasmoc has ever said.

                  Jeff has self declared himself a proud globalist drunkie.

                3. “conservative cancel culture”

                  Something, something, mean girls, something, something, bUiLd yUr oWn iNtErNeT iF u d0n’T liKe iT.

                4. Replying to comments does not equate to cancel culture my little victim.

                  1. It does in the minds of pathetic leftists that pretend to be libertarian.

                5. Tubby isn’t a libertarian, he’s a democrat shill. He’s also a sophist shitposter. With multiple socks.

            2. “If Cruz wants to sell the last remaining shred of his soul”

              This is exactly the problem wirh you. He isn’t selling his soul by defending someone who is detestable. It’s a grounding principle of jurisprudence that should be celebrated. Everyone gets a defense. EVERYONE. And only shitbags judge the defenders like you have for upholding that principle.

              Detestable people, such as yourself, deserve a full throated and vigorous defense as much as anyone else, and your ilk framing it otherwise is rank.

              1. No, Cruz is selling his soul by offering to defend a man that (1) accused him of cheating in the 2016 Iowa primaries, (2) made fun of his wife’s looks, and (3) accused his father of being part of the plot to assassinate JFK. That’s why. Not because Trump is just an awful guy in general.

                I never said anything about the general principle of *criminal* defendants deserving quality legal representation regardless of their crimes they have been accused of, which is what I think you are referring to. I totally agree with that principle. Incidentally, in this specific case, Trump is not a criminal defendant.

                But thanks for your comment. Well, except for the part which was a long, unfounded assumption about me and my beliefs.

                1. Did Kalama sell her soul by being the running mate of a racist rapist?

                  1. you’re assuming she still had one

                    1. may have traded it away long ago

                2. “No, Cruz is selling his soul by offering to defend”

                  And you are still doing it

                  You are a piece of shit. Trump is a piece of shit. Cruz is a piece of shit.

                  But no, he isn’t selling his soul defending someone he destests. People with princioles consider such challenges proof of their commitment to their principles.

                  You don’t get it. And you keep not getting it. “He said mean stuff so fuck him” is middle school bullshit.

                  1. Jeff is an original protean internet troll. His principles are whatever he needs to say to look right on the internet.

                    1. Plus he lies a lot.

                  2. Actually I mistyped, Cruz is not offering to “defend” anything. He is offering to argue in favor of Trump’s position at SCOTUS. Trump is not a criminal defendant and Cruz is not volunteering his services to give a dirtbag he detests a valiant and robust defense in court. That would actually be admirable. Instead, Cruz is volunteering to perform a very big favor for a man who accused Cruz and his family *personally* of some despicable things. And yes I think it speaks very poorly of Cruz’s sense of honor that he would choose to do that.

                    1. “in court”

                      I swear to god this kind of irrelevant hair splitting is why everyone hates you.

                    2. And yes I think it speaks very poorly of Cruz’s sense of honor that he would choose to do that.

                      That’s entirely the problem. You think it’s a bad thing that Cruz is rising above his more base instincts and ignoring Trump’s petty bullshit. Because you wouldn’t.

                      That’s an indictment of YOU. Not Cruz.

                    3. If someone falsely and publicly accused my father of treasonous behavior, I would not regard it as mere “petty bullshit”. But, you be you.

                    4. Which is entirely the point. You think petty bullshit is serious business and a reason to disregard one’s principles.

                      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TfAYz6p-mlw

                    5. I would not regard it as mere “petty bullshit”.

                      Yeah you’ve said that. What you don’t understand is that Cruz is engaging with the principles, Trump and his boorish behavior have nothing to do with it.

                      You can’t seem to grasp that.

                    6. “If someone falsely and publicly accused my father of treasonous behavior, I would not regard it as mere “petty bullshit”. But, you be you.

                      Well, no one wants to be you.

                3. No, Cruz is selling his soul by offering to defend a man that (1) accused him of cheating in the 2016 Iowa primaries, (2) made fun of his wife’s looks, and (3) accused his father of being part of the plot to assassinate JFK. That’s why. Not because Trump is just an awful guy in general.

                  Obviously, Jeff doesn't understand the nuances with politics.

                  Is Kamala Harris "shredding her soul" because she agreed to be Biden's VP after all those horrible things she revealed about Biden during the primaries? Of all the things Kamala Harris no longer believes about Joe Biden, the instant he made her his running mate.

                  1. You’ll notice his punk bitch ass just ignores you post, because his boo Kamala the Ugandan Whore would in fact be selling her soul and his ego can’t handle that.

                  2. Yes, ignoring points that go against his narrative is one of the many different ways that Lying Jeffy is dishonest.

                4. Ya, just shows that despite the right’s obsession with “cucks” and trying to call out lefties for being them, they are, and have always been, the ultimate cucks

                  Ted Cruz perfect example. Literally shit all over, wife shit on by the guy, and he comes back groveling. Literal Cuck. The blueprint for R wingers to follow in bending the knee to dear leader.

                  Also that liberty university guy seems like he was also a metaphorical, as well as literal, cuck.

                  1. You and Jeff should fuck.

                    1. Get out the flour. Jeff is fucking obese.

                  2. Only fucking morons call human beings ‘cucks’. So keep using the term.

              2. You are confused. Yes, everyone deserves defense counsel and it is appalling to judge a lawyer by who they defend. However, lawyers are not permitted to make arguments they know to be false and the Texas lawsuit was not a criminal proceeding. Lawyers are not permitted to file frivolous lawsuits and, indeed, can be sanctioned for it. The fact that SCOTUS wouldn’t even permit this case to be filed tells you just how valid a legal case there was.

                1. “Top Men are always honest, correct, and never corrupt or cowardly.”

                2. Actually, not hearing a case is the complete avoidance of determining the validity of that case.

                  1. Please cite a single case brought by Trump or on behalf of Trump relating to this election that a single court has determined it to be frivolous.

                    Hint: there have been none deemed frivolous by any court.

                    1. Sorry, that was a reply to con_fuse…

              3. Cruiz is actually not defending, he is on the side of the attacking party.
                You have a right to a lawyer to defend you in a criminal case, not when you are making frivolous lawsuits.

                1. Please cite a single case brought by Trump or on behalf of Trump relating to this election that a single court has determined it to be frivolous.

                  Hint: there have been none deemed frivolous by any court.

              4. Now if anyone would actually look at evidence instead of dismissal based on “principals” (wrongthink), before examining the evidence.

            3. Trump deserves whatever legal representation that is willing to freely work for him. If Cruz wants to sell the last remaining shred of his soul in order to do it, then by all means, Cruz should not be prevented from doing so.

              LOL. In other words, Trump should have zero legal representation! - or - that legal representative doesn't have principles!

              In one sentence, Chemjeff says trump "deserves legal representation." Then in the next, suggests that doing so is "shredding one's soul." I mean, Fuck, why is that criminal's representation, say, murderers standing trial, they get representation and nobody thinks their legal council is crap, but if Trump get's representation, then they are "shredding their soul." LOL. I'll tell you why. Jeff is an ideologue. Okay. A left wing ideologue. It's transparent as glass, that is why anyone who would represent Trump is "shredding their soul." Really simple.

            4. Oh, fuck you. You don’t have to be a trump supporter to object to Biden stealing the election.

              -jcr

              1. “stealing”

                1. “WAH IF AWE CHEAT REALLY HARD THAT MEANS WE DESERVE IT!”

                  No, CultistJeff, the Hillary Fallacy still doesn’t apply.

                2. SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT ballot reading failure rate in Michigan, fucko. All those ballots were manually determined by people who were kicking out observers and papering over the windows.

                  That’s STEALING, you blithering imbecile.

                  1. Most secure election ever.

            5. Oh, look. CultistJeff signed back into this socknpuppet to whine that people who don’t think that the Constitution and due process are violations of the Constitution because some lying hack writer said so are “intellectual whores”.

        3. Pedo Jeffy managed to tear himself away from his NAMBLA board to shitpost here. He will soon follow with his DeLoser dipshit sock.

        4. Actually, a lot of people on the Democrat’s side had said that he doesn’t deserve representation, and that he is a attempting a coup for using legal channels to make his claims.

      2. Because, obviously, the Constitution that dictates that state legislatures should direct how electors are chosen REALLY meant local executives and unelected judges should direct that instead.

        Here is the Constitution describing the Electoral College:

        “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

        So, if a state legislature decides to delegate some of its authority of how its electors are chosen, to agencies of the state’s executive branch, that is totally consistent with the Constitution.

        And if controversies arise in the interpretation or implementation of those laws, they are litigated through the state courts, just like controversies regarding any piece of legislation. Again that isn’t unconstitutional per se.

        Is the argument here that because the state legislature may not have necessarily expressly voted on every single detail of every election procedure, then the whole thing is unconstitutional? If that is the case, then that is reading the elector clause absurdly narrowly, IMO.

        Besides, do you really want federal courts to be micromanaging oversight over every election detail in every state? That seems to be the opposite of the federalist idea in the Constitution.

        1. Besides, do you really want federal courts to be micromanaging oversight over every election detail in every state? That seems to be the opposite of the federalist idea in the Constitution.

          They just want to win. Especially if it means suspending the Constitution, declaring martial law, and making Trump dictator for life.

          1. Yeah, I don’t think they haven’t really thought through this game plan of theirs.

            1. They certainly didn’t arrive at it by reason, so they can’t be reasoned out of it. It’s all emotion. It’s a fool’s errand to try.

              1. For a few decades elections have been changed without the legislative branch. This very site used to criticize courts for doing so, especially the judicial branch. You and they changed their viewpoints because Biden won.

                You are too drunk to understand that.

              2. Get a room, you two.

            2. “I don’t think they haven’t really thought through”

              Spoken like a real deep thinker.

              1. Let the world be known: R Mac caught me with an editing mistake!

                That should have said:
                “I don’t think they have really thought through this game plan of theirs.”

                1. You fucked up your thinking in the very sentence you were insulting someone’s thinking with. It’s classic Jeff.

                  1. He’s such a tiresome little prat.

          2. Sit down drunkie. Sober people are discussing things you failed in high school.

        2. if a state legislature decides to delegate some of its authority

          Wrong. The electors clause creates a requirement on the part of the legislatures. It’s not creating a license for them to shirk their duty.

          -jcr

          1. Think about what you are saying. Why in the world would the founding fathers want to place that arbitrary constraint on how a state government works? Isn’t it more likely that what they intended to convey in the Electors Clause is that running state elections is sovereign state business that the Federal government and other states cannot interfere in.

            1. I don’t know, but they do that all the time. Why did at least one US Constitutional amendment specify that it be ratified by conventions in the states, while others allowed either conventions or legislation? In this case they specified legislatures, the wording is clear.

            2. They put arbitrary constraints on many actions the states can take dumbfuck. See right to travel as a glaring one.

            3. “The Constitution doesn’t actually mean what it says, it means what my syphilis-riddled brain says it does.”

              Go suck on a shotgun.

          2. and every state set up a popular election to choose the Electors (some by Congressional district vote). None of them set up a backup plan for the state legislature to select the Electors AFTER the people voted if there are legal questions on the election. Those go to the courts, as they always do.

        3. The states didn’t delegate to the executive you retarded fuck. The judicial changes the rules is also not delegation you retarded fuck

        4. Now do Section 2 and how “and citizens of the United States” sponsors illegal immigrants being counted to stuff the electors in CA.

      3. Jacob Sullum is obviously nothing more than a yellow hack practicing brown envelope journalism at this point.

        Hey Jacob, you bought-and-paid-for shill!
        You wrote a whopping 24 articles screaming about this very topic in just one fucking month.
        How many articles did you, or Reason as a whole, ever write about the Uighur holocaust? Literal honest-to-goodness fucking slaves are making Disney toys and NBA jerseys? Was there even one Reason article dedicated to the subject?

        Or pay for play, the Biden laptop, and the China connection?

        Or the Obama spy scandal? Even Nixon never used the FBI, CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on the opposition political party.

        Or the the 126 congressmen who supported the Texas lawsuit?

        Or the Abraham Accords + Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan? Peace between the Jews and Arabs got how many articles?

        Or the Serbia-Kosovo deal?
        Was it 24?

        How many articles did Reason publish on the First Step Act? Prison reform is incredibly important to libertarians. It got a handful of mentions, but nowhere near 24.

        Or the obvious superiority of the USMCA over NAFTA? Or even about the USMCA?

        Or about North Korean rapprochement?

        Did Reason write 24 articles about the Taliban peace agreement? 15? 10? 5? 1? or maybe fucking zero?

        There were shitloads of articles about Trump’s tarriffs, but how many about the massive deregulation that just took place?

        You and your pals have made it obvious, Jacob, as to what you really are.

        1. But the important thing is Orange Man Bad.

          Nothing else matters.

          I’m finding it difficult to understand how anyone can be satisfied with a corrupt election process. Except, of course, for those who benefit from the corruption.

        2. It’s times like this that I miss being able to upvote comments, because I’d go create sockpuppets just to upvote this more, and I don’t believe in creating sockpuppets.

          Well said, that was a mighty fine fisking.

      4. Yep! Trump should have zero legal representation! - or - that legal representative doesn't have principles! - unreason rag.

      5. Do you really believe a person deserves good legal representation in any sort of lawsuit they decide to toss at someone else?

        How about the guy who sued Michael Jordan for looking too much like him? Did he deserve good legal representation? If he could not afford it, should he be provided with a court appointed lawyer? Should I decide to sue because of your thinking me a spectacularly totalitarian person, would you object to whatever lawyer so idiotic as to represent me being sanctioned? What about persons who SLAPP suits? Do they deserved good legal representation?

        1. Not clear on what you’re getting at here. Are you suggesting that some kind of pre-trial qualification should determine what quality of representation a litigant should be allowed to hire? If so, who decides that?

          -jcr

      6. Paxton’s reading, which suited his goals, was quite strict and literal. Perhaps it is the correct reading, or perhaps the Founders intended that the Electors Clause allowed for reasonable actions by a state’s judiciary and executive, if there is delegation or tacit legislative approval.

        However, let us say Paxton’s interpretation is correct: Texas’ governor then violated the Electors Clause, as did several other states.

        1. Chipper thinks the founders were too dumb to describe judicial action in a role of government.

        2. Sorry, but the judiciary has never and should never be delegated with legislative tasks given they are the arbiters of any lawsuits on any given legislations constitutionality, among other things.

      7. Lawyers also have the job of filtering out the bullshit and not waste the courts time. They are ‘officers of the court’

        1. Correct and if they don’t, courts have punishment mechanisms for that eventuality. However, since no case yet brought by Trump has led a single court to dismiss based on frivolity, it’s doubtful this one will regardless of what your imaginary friends tell you.

          1. You’re not taking into account the voices in his head.

    4. Well, no one said Trump was a nice guy.

      Maybe Cruz is committed to the principle of fair elections, and thinks something smells.

      Or maybe he’s committed to the principle of political victory by any means possible, and sees a way around the outcome chosen by the voters.

      Or maybe he’s committed to the principle of looking like he’s backing Trump, so Trump’s supporters will back him in 2024.

      1. that last reason sounds like a winner!

    5. ProfitSuite Review✅ $5000 bonuses, discount, oto details https://fstoppers.com/video/537696

    6. Great fight, eager to see what will be the result.
      Oma Sex

    7. I am making a good salary from home $1300-$2600/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank hte God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty yjr to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do…… Click Here

    8. It’s clear that the Republican Party isn’t exactly sure what it is, what it wants, and how to unify under that banner. It’s not that these people suddenly got stupid, it’s that Trump was immensely popular despite the media’s portrayal and bad mouthing of him for 4 years. No president that is allegedly as bad as Trump would ever have the approval ratings he had at times. The reality is that voters liked him enough – he lost the popular vote by ~3 million votes and that means close to half of the nation liked him enough to vote for him. Consider one exit poll that should 9% of Biden voters felt they made a mistake by voting for Biden and would consider switching their vote to Trump… he’s a popular and liked figure despite his erratic style. His brand of conservatism, which is that America-first, fair play and libertous lifestyle is resonating with conservatives and centrists. The problem is that Republican establishment don’t know how to appeal to those people and lip service isn’t getting it done anymore.

      Enter chaos in the party. Trump voters aren’t loyal to the GOP, they’re loyal to Trump’s foundational thinking and that is going to remain and be a grassroots movement to reshape the party. Republicans need less Mitch McConnell and more of what Ted Cruz alleges he’s for and fighting the good fight instead of the self interest fight which is where we find ourselves with Congress. The right needs an identity to combat the left’s disarray and volatile tribalism and insane prejudice

  2. ” I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”

    1. Sullum never claimed to have principles.

      1. Fuck you Sullum.

        1. JOIN PART TIME JOBS
          Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Amj Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
          COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

        2. Sullum is an idiot. Watch this video of him:

          https://reason.com/video/2011/01/25/jacob-sullum-discusses-drug-te/#comments

          A legislator wants people on welfare tested for drugs. Sullum is really upset about it and says it's arbitrary and asks why he focuses on this one illegal element. But it's obvious to any watcher (but not to Sullum). If they have money for drugs, they shouldn't need welfare. Why the FUCK am I paying for their livelihood when what little money they do have, they are wasting on drugs. WTF! And retard Sullum ignores this. Sullum says "If you are trying to help someone..." No. I'm not trying to help them as much as I don't want my money wasted. If I am going to hand them my money, I sure as fuck don't want them wasting their money on drugs (of any kind). Then Sullum says "why not fat people or smokers." And the simple reason is, drug addicts aren't going to be able to get a job, because random or initial employment drug testing will reveal they are a drug user. The drugs were chosen because a smoker and a fat person can still get a job. A addict of illegal drugs cannot. And even if those drugs are legal, private companies can still test them and reject them for it. At 5:56, Sullum say's "The assumption is, every drug user is an unsuitable employee." That's right Sullum! Individual private companies, most of which, will drug test their employees, regardless. They will find some are users and dismiss them. Those are their policies, and they have their reasons for them (good reasons). Why have a good employee that uses drugs when you can have a good employee that doesn't use drugs.

          I'm beginning to think this site should change it's name to "unreason.com" or perhaps "legalizedrugsandhoes.com"

      2. The fuck stole my handle? Has Tulpa learned new tricks?

        1. Preceding spaces?

          1. Weird, I just typed my name in. It’s a fairly common name not sure what you’re getting mad for.

            1. Not mad Tulpi-poo. Just wondering how you did it. I never switch handles so it’s curious.

              1. I don’t know what you’re talking about dude. Would you like me to change it to something else?

                1. Keep it. I don’t post here often.

              2. “Tulpi-poo”

                “I never switch handles”

                Fuck off Banjos.

                1. “Tulpi-poo” steals people’s IDs by putting a “hair-space” character as lead-in. Click and drag slowly over the posting-name, and see the tiny hair-space at the lead end.

                  Evil fuckers for ID theft! THIS is what “Tulpi-poo” is all about!

                  1. That’s it. He input a space before the E.

                    1. Not sure it’s a space….might be another character that doesn’t display correctly. I could probably figure it out if I was a fat, fucking creepy loser that spent all my time trying to figure out how to shit up a comment site with a sockpuppet army and steal people’s handle. Reason apparently doesn’t mind letting fucking fat, creepy losers turn their comment section into a sewer. Sad. This place used to have a lot of smart people. Now it’s just bunch a bunch of inbred assholes calling libertarians pedophiles.

                    2. I didn’t know white knight was fat too! And buttplug is no libertarian. He doesn’t even claim to be.

                  2. I’ve complained to Reason over this before and gotten a response. They said they did something, but apparently it wasn’t enough.

                    You guys should do some screenshots or something, and submit it to IT. Then instead of “Hey mister mechanic I swear it was making a noise yesterday” you can say “Hey mister software guy, here is an example of the problem, please fix it.”

                    1. I wrote to them at the same time at your encouragement. They never did anything about it. (Not blaming you.)

                    2. You stole many handles with the same trick Wk you dishonest fuck.

                    3. Wow Dee. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

                      No wonder you support liberal politicians who break their own edicts.

                    4. “JesseAz
                      December.13.2020 at 10:03 pm

                      You stole many handles with the same trick Wk you dishonest fuck.”

                      Bullshit. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to impersonate the 2nd stupidest motherfucker on this comment board.

                    5. Lol. Many people are the 2nd stupidest motherfucker on this board?

                      Seriously though Dee admitted she stole handles. She was righteous in her reasoning.

                2. Does she even come here anymore? The Glibs seem happy in their little hermetically sealed world.

              3. I too pretend I’m not mad when it’s obvious to everyone that I am!

              4. When you say ‘Tulpi-POO’ you get Squirrely’s appetite going.

    2. Rule 11 : https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

      b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.

      1. And none of Trump’s cases thus far have been found by any court to violate rule 11, so it’s unlikely to assume this one will.

        1. Reality is challenging to people like him.

  3. By his own account, the Texas senator is committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully

    Because the alternatives have proven themselves to be that and worse.

    1. By her own account, VP Harris is committed to serving an openly racist president Biden (who also happens to be dishonest, amoral and narcissistic).

      Hey, I like how this works!

      1. Harris also said, during the primaries, that she believed the woman who said Biden raped her.

        1. Sadly, she probably does believe Biden’s victim. That makes it even worse.

          -jcr

      2. at least they have something in common

  4. Jacob Sullum is on his way to becoming a full-time Trump derangement correspondent.

    We don’t give a shit about your dumb overwrought opinions, Jacob. You were never going to say anything kind about Ted Cruz anyway.

    You have become just another MSM-style swamp defender.

    1. Reason as a whole seems to be just as desperate as the rest of corporate media, Google, Twitter, and Facebook that no questions be asked about these election results, and that the election itself be completely not analyzed and completely forgotten. We are to trust that the government has our best interests at heart and is trustworthy, and must submit to Biden’s administration as our rulers.
      Seems inconsistent with libertarianism, and a bit suspicious.

      As others have mentioned (perhaps cyto?) Biden’s win was quite remarkable and extraordinary. It upends everything pundits thought they knew about politics and voter behavior. You’d think his team’s strategy would bear some examination, to analyze what they did to pull off the impossible.
      But none of the people confident in the reported results have shown any interest in doing so. They are extraordinarily uncurious…

      1. Well, yeah. Many people don’t like having their presumptions questions, especially when they’re really fucking stupid presumptions like in this article.

  5. That sound you hear is a polemic by Sullum that fell flat on its butt and can’t get up.

    Also every politician is a dishonest amoral bully. Why do libertarians insist on living in a fantasy world.

    Anyway you got Biteme and his merry band of Obama hacks and sociopaths. Enjoy our silence when you ask for help.

  6. Holy shit this article is ridiculous.

  7. Principles means never coming to the defense of anyone who ever wrote a mean tweet

    1. “After Trump, who had dubbed Cruz ‘Lyin’ Ted,’ implicated the senator’s father in John F. Kennedy’s assassination (yes, that really happened), …”

      Perhaps you missed this part? The word, craven, comes to mind.

      1. “Principles”

        You missed this part, the word douchenag (not a typo) comes to mind.

        1. Wind. Pissing. You.

        2. Dee’s a squawking bird with no principles.

      2. Well, at least Trump did not accuse Cruz of being a rapist, like Harris did of Biden.

      3. Quiet woman

  8. You guys think that by repeating it enough, you’ll convince yourselves, or us, how awful Trump is?

    1. Trump is a total asshole, and he’s the second-worst candidate in this race. That’s not a reason to ignore the thousands of witnesses who have testified under penalty of perjury that they witnessed the Democrats pulling all manner of illegal tricks in this election.

      -jcr

      1. Affidavits don’t carry a penalty of perjury.
        I haven’t read all the affidavits but the ones I read were like: “I saw poll workers roll their eyes when they saw a tRump ballot. I believe 1000s of tRump ballots were not counted”
        “I saw boxes come in late, I believe they must have been filled with ballots”
        “I couldn’t see from my observation point”

        I couldn’t find a single one that alleged fraud. But I guess it’s the courts job to sort through the crap and find the gold nugget?
        See Rule 11

        Its all about delay and wasting time, the question is why.

        1. Saw rule 11 and already noted it’s not been used on any Trump court case yet.

          Also, I missed your link to affidavits claiming insubstantial things which were also used as the basis for one of these suits.

        2. Like you actually read any of the affidavits, you lying sack of shit.

  9. Reason decides to ignore revelations of hundreds of thousands of Chinese agents spread across the world’s governments and media, and instead chalks up another 300 articles whining about how unConstitutional it is to legally challenge and investigate an election that was blatantly rigged by a party owned wholestock by the CCP.

    I wonder why.

    1. because it doesn’t effect profits at Koch Industries.

    2. Sky News broke that story. Pretty crazy but no surprise. The CCP is on the march. The CCP loves Beijing Biden. Trump the ‘bully’ stood up to the Chicoms and was 100% correct with his instincts.

      But TDS clouded everyone including Reason.

      Now we find ourselves in a situation were TWO leaders friendly to China are governing North America.

      Terrible situation.

      1. “Trump the ‘bully’ stood up to the Chicoms and was 100% correct with his instincts.”

        Yeah he sure stood up to them alright. Buying millions of hats for his campaign made in China, investing in real estate there and helping his daughter obtain trademarks and patents there will sure show those ChiComs!

        1. FoRgET hIS TaRIfFs hE bOuGHt sOmE StUfF tHEre!!!

          1. Buying hats for his campaign there is just a WEE bit more specifically damning than just “buying stuff.”

            1. Well, according to you, buying hats from them is equivalent to bending the knee, so

            2. It really isn’t.

            3. Lol, seriously?

        2. In case anybody missed it, jomo let us know in the previous thread what exactly he/she/it and the left is, and the totalitarianism they intend to impose:

          “Nardz
          December.13.2020 at 5:17 pm
          Peace will not work.
          The left will not stop, it must be stopped.
          They got away with destroying millions of people’s lives with lockdowns and closures precisely because they’re not afraid of kinetic opposition.
          Either you get violent, or you submit to totalitarianism.
          That’s it. That’s the choice.

          jomo
          December.13.2020 at 6:35 pm
          Nardz is on record right here, right now, advocating widespread violence. No ambiguity. Literally a criminal post.”

          If you don’t believe leftists will destroy your lives and criminalize your every activity, just think about 2020 and responses like jomo’s here.

      2. Trump has done more to boost the trade deficit with China than any other president. China loves tRump (ineffective, stupid).

        1. Trade deficits don’t mean a fucking thing except to room-temperature cretins like you that don’t understand the first fucking thing about economics.

          But by all means, whine some more and throw shit at the walls. It’s what you do best.

    3. Do they all look like Feng Feng? Because if so I’ll tell them anything they want to know.

      1. Better yet, make shit up to tell them.

        -jcr

      2. She’s a 5… tops.

        Pathetic

    4. “I wonder why.”

      Too local.

  10. Reason has only done three (3) Hunter Biden stories this year. Seriously, only 3?

    The more I’ve been seeing over the past three months makes me believe more that Reason is more left than Libertarian. I might not renew my subscription and move on.

    1. Reason stopped being libertarian awhile ago.

      1. so did a lot of the commenters

    2. Do it.

      If Reason is half the Libertarian publication it claims to be, they’ll fully support your decision to no longer voluntarily give money to people who write anti-Constitution agitprop.

    3. Reason Commenters, 2016-19:
      “Why are you devoting time to these unsubstantiated rumors from unverified sources alleging corruption with regards to Trump? It’s ridiculous!”

      Reason Commenters, 2020:
      “Why aren’t you devoting more time to unsubstantiated rumors from unverified sources alleging corruption with regards to Hunter Biden and his father? It’s ridiculous!”

      1. CultistJeff in 2020: “WAAAHH THAT’S NOT FAIR! HILLARY REALLY WON CUZ SHE CHEATED REALLY, REALLY HARD! RUSSIANS HACKED PAPER BALLOTS AND CHANGED THEM!”

        CultistJeff in 2020: “No election in the history of elections has ever been tampered with in any way, EVER. Communists tend to get more votes than ballots cast cuz we’re so just cool and popular.”

        1. I wasn’t expecting to rent space in your head, but now that I’m here, I must confess, it’s a little cramped..

          1. You would be so pathetic as to think people taking five seconds to tell off one of your 800 bitchposts in the last fifteen minutes alone means that someone in the world gives a shit about you.

            1. You certainly do, since you are threadstalking me and responding to nearly everything that I write.

              1. I guess that’s what you’re gonna get when you’re such a pathetic loser that you literally do nothing with your worthless life except go post-by-post through every article on this site bitching and lying.

                I an glad to see that I hit such a nerve you have no recourse but to retreat into pathetic Twitter snark-cliches. Maybe next you can say “I hear Mommy calling”, or some limp comment about being off medication.

                1. Gee I don’t know, I think the standard for “pathetic behavior” would certainly encompass the practice of going through every article on a site that you don’t even like to respond to commenters that you don’t like with vulgar insults.

                  I mean, what’s the end game here exactly? What do you hope to achieve with your trolling?

                  1. Says the pedophile who has spent every moment of the last 3+ days going through every post he disagrees with to shriek and whine and troll and bitch across numerous fake accounts created for the sole purpose of making him feel like he’a the center of the universe.

                    1. It is fucking hilarious that you’re this desperate for validation, however.

              2. Tell me, Jeff, when the kids at school beat the shit out of you and mocked you every day, was that just because they were so obsessed with how cool you are?

                1. Actually, my school experience wasn’t anything at all like that. My condolences if yours was.

                  1. Stay at home fattie? Would explain the irrational fear you have.

                  2. “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!?!”

                    And this is why they mocked and beat the shit out of you. And continue to do so into adulthood.

              3. Nearly everything?

                We knew you were fucking stupid, Jeffy, but at least some of us thought you could still do basic math.

            2. Yes, Lying Jeffy is that pathetic.

          2. Yeah because you’re a fat ass.

          3. Tubby. You are such a fat pussy.

      2. Your obviously an idiot and not worth the effort.

    4. How many Trump Jr stories that didn’t involve Sr.?

  11. This has to be at least the 10th article this week on something Reason is sure there is nothing there. If Biden ends up doing things that actually flagrantly reject the Constitution more often than Trump or in ways far worse than Trump, will it get this amount of coverage?

    1. Going on a month and one week of steady “Don’t Pay Attention” articles, now.

  12. Poor Sullum and his TDS.

    1. Unlike the Uber-Smart R Mac, “Poor Sullum” has been taking WAAAAY insufficient under-doses of smart pills from underneath the rabbit hutch!

      1. Fuck off shit eater.

      2. Oh Sqrlsy dear, you haven’t been eating rabbit poo again, have you? That’s why we had to give Mr. Flopsy away, it’s not good for you.

        1. RABBIT POO? TRABBIT DOO! I love to LIE my ass off, and suck Satan’s dick! Because I hate humanity! The Evil One is the Father of Lies, just as Der TrumpfenFuhrer is the Stable Genius! So, as the apple falls not far from the tree, I INSIST on telling obvious lies, all day, every day! Butt… Surprise, surprise! Other Evil Ones Junior will fall for my lies… Because they want to!

          1. Mother’s Lament
            Bimbosday, 43 Bimbobember 2020 at 6:66 PM
            I lust after being abused by power-mad politicians, because I am power-mad myself! And I suffer under the utterly stupid illusion that power-mad politicians will feed me, like a doggy under the table, a wee few, tiny scraps of their vast powers. Biden came up here to Canoodlestanistanistanistanistan to noodle me and my poodle, and give me nookie, with my Wookie and my bookie, but all that Biden would do, is smell my hair! So I lust after Der TrumpfenFuhrer to come up here and grab my pussy good and hard!

            1. Bimsday, 39 Bemberbember 2020 at 6:66 PM
              Yes! This FURTHER proves that Hitler was NOT a racist!
              Since even Hitler wasn’t a racist, we can pretty firmly conclude that racism isn’t a “thing” at all!
              Here, this is a pretty good match! Every asshole is a good, right, and TRUE, benevolent asshole!
              https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/hitler
              “My spirit will rise from the grave and the world will see I was right.” ― Adolf Hitler
              Flute Police are authorized to use everything up to and including field artillery, and nuclear weapons, to enforce The LAW, dammit, citizen, so OBEY!
              Unauthorized civilians are NOT allowed to play the WRONG kinds of flutes!!! Capisce?
              “Germans who wish to use cheap plastic lung flutes should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need these deadly lung flutes, as their having cheap plastic lung flutes doesn’t serve the State.”
              ― Heinrich Himmler

              1. You really love Himmler and Hitler, don’t you? I’ll bet you’re really Rob Misek.

                1. She also might be a bimbo.

  13. “But the Texas senator’s eagerness to do so speaks volumes about the extent to which the Republican Party has abandoned the principles it once claimed to defend,”

    Well, no. It speaks volumes about the extent to which Ted Cruz has abandoned the principles. He’s one guy.

    What does Ted’s offer say about Brian Kemp? Or Brad Raffensperger? Or Mitt Romney? Not to mention the six presumably Republican justices who quashed it in conjunction with their colleagues.

    Sullum actually recognizes without admitting it that this premise is incorrect when he later mentions a filing opposed to the Paxton suit made by “conservative legal scholars and Republican politicians”.

    How about we stick to facts and quit trying to make everything big picture?

    1. You aren’t going to get support from the Trump fans here, who have told us how awful the “RINOs” like Romney are.

      1. I’m not looking for support, that’s hopeless I think.

        Broad statements like Sullum made are just bad logic. Honestly, we have no idea what the majority of Republicans think about this, because most of them are (smartly) just keeping their mouths shut. If I were one of them, I’d stay out of it.

        1. I agree. Your average Republican is a decent person. Just like your average Democrat, they are your family, friends, and neighbors.

          1. You mean the ones who sit down and just accept the chosen narrative.

        2. because most of them are smarter than to play the childish name-calling gangster-hate mentality doggy-pile… It was a dead giveaway in the title.

      2. “You aren’t going to get support from the Trump fans here,”

        Why would an adult care about this? This isn’t the middle school lunchroom no matter how much you try to make it so.

        1. The White Knight is here for only one reason which is stated in their nickname. They think they’re defending the honour of Reason maidens and the faith.

          1. That’s one reason I’m here. And what is wrong with that? Why are you here?

            The bigger reason I’m here is I hope someday the commentariat can return to the days when there was intelligent conversation here.

            1. You were never involved on it. Intelligent conversation doesn’t mean never having a disagreement retard. Your preferred state is never disagreeing with what you view as an authority figure. Youre not intelligent.

            2. Nonsense. You’re pissed that the commentariat isn’t filled with bien pensants nodding their heads to the progressive orthodoxy the current crop of pseudo-Reasonistas are pushing.
              So to fix that you’re trolling everyone knows who doesn’t reflexively agree.

              The only problem is that you only have average smarts and just like sarcasmic and Sqrlsy you can’t handle an argument over CNN or I Fucking Love Science level. So you end up spamming “nuh uh’s”, and getting mad.

            3. “can return to the days when there was intelligent conversation” — Yes, I miss those too.. Seems the lefty hate-strollers weren’t so active back then. There was only chemjeff and at least his arguments are generally #@#$% Republics and #@%$ Trump – there was actually misinformed-substance to address.

      3. Romney is definitely a RINO and fucking awful. Name any Republican that doesn’t fight to reduce spending and you’ll find a RINO, to be totally honest.

        1. He’s Mormon too so you know he’s a shitbags. It as big a shitbags as Mike Lee. God fucking damn Mike Lee is insane. Goddamn mormons.

          1. There’s a shit ton of typos there.

            Bottom line: fuck Mike Lee, Romney, and all the mormons.

            Mormons need to die.

            1. ^….. “But you guys are fascists!” — lmao…. 🙂 Compulsively says the party of identity politics where nothing matters but name-labelling, color of skin, religion and sex.

        2. Agreed. My rule of thumb for politicians is that almost all Democrats and about half of Republicans are fucking awful, and I’m rarely proved wrong there.

      4. Only Trump fans here view Romney as a RINO? In quotations?

        How long have you been here? Five minutes?

        1. In Dee’s defense, she’s very dumb.

      5. I remember when you and the other libs called Romney a nazi as well.

        1. No, you don’t, because I never did such.

  14. The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers
    https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

    To secure enactment of these safeguards, Amash needed support from a majority of House Democrats. That meant that House Democrats held the power in their hands to decide whether Trump — the president they have been vocally vilifying as a lawless tyrant threatening American democracy — would be subjected to serious limits and safeguards on how his FBI could spy on the conversations of American citizens.

    Debate on the bill and the amendments began on the House floor yesterday afternoon, and it became quickly apparent that leading Democrats intended to side with Trump and against those within their own party who favored imposing safeguards on the Trump administration’s ability to engage in domestic surveillance. The most bizarre aspect of this spectacle was that the Democrats who most aggressively defended Trump’s version of the surveillance bill — the Democrats most eager to preserve Trump’s spying powers as virtually limitless — were the very same Democratic House members who have become media stars this year by flamboyantly denouncing Trump as a treasonous, lawless despot in front of every television camera they could find.

    1. Reason Articles – “Erase those borders!!”

  15. Die, Reason.

    https://nationalfile.com/leak-confirmed-chinese-communists-have-infiltrated-top-companies-governments-in-us-uk-australia/

    Multiple top international news outlets confirm that a list of 1.95 million Chinese Communist Party members has been leaked, and in it are the names of potentially thousands of individuals who live and work in the West, including at major financial institutions, medical research and pharmaceutical companies, and foreign governments.

    1. What do they expect to get from their influence? Is that TBD, i.e. it never hurts to have agents of influence in place for opportunities that might come up? Or can you think of particulars?

    2. Well well.
      Here comes Red Scare 2.0.

      1. Is that a weak Boogeyman the Left created to goad Useful Idiots into thinking that Communism is a innocent victim who only tries to overthrow other countries from within as an act of benevolence, like the first “Red Scare”?

        You don’t have to answer just now. Go type up another 500 posts about how Drumpf Is Literally Hitler first.

        1. No, I think Red Scare 2.0 is going to be a copy/paste of 1950’s propaganda, with China substituted for Soviet Union, even though the two are substantially different in a lot of ways. But we will get the same fearmongering, the same gross generalizations of anyone who looks like they might be from China just assumed to be a communist spy, the same violations of liberties justified in the name of “fighting communism”.

          1. First there were communists infiltrating our institutions in the 50’s through to today. Second seems you’re ignoring the last three years of “Russia hacked the election” hysteria by leftists like you to push his narrative plus the honest election election narrative you lying troll.

          2. Okay, so a bunch of Useful Idiot bullshit that translates to exactly what I said.

    3. “Multiple top international news outlets confirm that a list of 1.95 million Chinese Communist Party members has been leaked, and in it are the names of potentially thousands of individuals who live and work in the West, including at major financial institutions, medical research and pharmaceutical companies, and foreign governments.”

      … Well, We certainly wouldn’t want to get straddled with the name ‘Protectionist’ while actually pretending the USA deserves any speckle of manageable land-borders. “The freedom to be invaded by the CCP!” /s

  16. Jake the Joke Sullum’s Eagerness to blow Joe Biden Epitomizes His Employer’s Complete Lack of Objectivity, Ethics, and (Ironically) Reason

  17. Is anyone paying any attention to what Biden is doing and saying?

    There was leaked audio of Biden basically telling his base to fuck off.

    Biden is every bit the bullying creep. WORSE EVEN.

    Add Harris and you have a combo way worse than anything Trump offered.

    WTF Jacob?

    1. What does any of that have to do with Trump completely humiliating himself on a daily basis for the past month?

      1. Yes, filing legal actions is completely humiliating himself to TDS-infected shits.

        1. Come on, a record of 1-50 is pretty humiliating.

          1. What is wrong with exhausting all possible paths? Seems reasonable to me; businesses do that all the time with lawsuits.

            Plus, it will strengthen the idea that the courts are bumbling partisans. The PA supreme court has already been dragged out and exposed for that. Now everyone knows where the corruption needs to be weeded out.

          2. Oh? I thought the imaginary number according to Twitter Millennials was 1-764,048,648 now.

            Y’know, even though Trump only filed four cases which are still ongoing.

          3. President Gore won every legal case in 2000 except one (Bush v. Gore), dumbass motherfucker.

      2. And then, when Biden starts fucking the world up, this dipshit will respond with, “Okay, but what does it have to do with how much I hate Trump?”.

    2. It is important to demoralize the Trump supporters in the Reason comments, or there will be years of “I told you so” during the presidency of the senile crook and his corrupt prosecutor successor.

    3. There was leaked audio of Biden basically telling his base to fuck off.

      Not his base, you stupid half-wit Canuck. Biden is telling the progressives like AOC/Bernie to fuck off by selecting centrists to his cabinet.

      1. Is this a parody, because the audio is pretty obvious.

      2. There are no centrists in his China-chosen cabinet, you braindead fucking pinko shit.

  18. The salt on display from diehard Trumptards here in the comments is always fun to read. XD

    1. The asshoolery on display from TDS-infected shits is amusing also.

      1. You think you know better? Go right ahead, take all the evidence you think exists and bring it to court. See if it works out for you.

        I’m sure you’ll do better than the army of lawyers Trump tried to send, even to Judges appointed by the man himself. XD

        1. That evidence is already in court, dumbfuck. Despite what the Twitter teenagers you spend your every waking moment hanging out with tell you, he has only filed four cases which are still active.

          1. Yeah, I’m sure they’ll totally succeed where the 50+ other cases have as well.

            1. You mean the imaginary “50+ cases” you were just outright told don’t exist, dumbass?

              Please. Since the Regressive Left is suddenly obsessed with evidence, provide some for these make believe cases. And no, Twitter posts from your fellow AntiFa shitbags don’t count.

              1. Leftists can’t count or do basic math. That’s why the national debt is so damn high.

        2. Who needs a court when you have 100 million outraged Americans?

      2. Citation?

        If you ever tried blow Sevo it was probably mostly Meth because you live in such a rural shithole. That’s why you felt addled.

        Square

        1. You suck dick for your coke, don’t you?

    2. This coming from a guy who doesn’t realize how foolish he looks when he’s eating Biden’s ass all day.

    3. When Trump is reinaugurated, I hope you’re so depressed you decide to end it all, because that will raise the average national IQ significantly.

  19. Just proves that Lyin Ted has a big heart and is willing to forgive his adversaries.

    1. Awfully Christian of him.

      1. Were you as upset when Obama and Hillary put aside all the horrible things they said about each other to collectively stomp on our heads with patent leather boots?

        1. He was doing his best Kevin Bacon from Animal House: “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

  20. Has there ever been a mental meltdown as pathetic as that of the Trumpbots here over the last few weeks?

    1. Someone’s pathetic fear of covid comes to mind.

    2. The 2016 election aftermath when democrats had a collective freak out and then proceeded to insanity.

      1. Where they violently rioted -still are- and tried everything from endless conspiracy hoaxes to fraudulent impeachment in the deluded hope that it would somehow lead to presidency for Hillary, who was off begging countries like India to attack America and put her in charge.

        Also, Trump has a lot of evidence in court, whereas the Democrat argument is still them insisting that Hillary HAD to be the teal winner, because they rigged it that way.

    3. You mean besides after the 2016 election?

    4. You’ve been shitting your pants for four years now J(ew)Free, but now suddenly you’re bitching about a “Trumpbots meltdown”?

    5. I’m just amazed at all the Reason staffers suddenly eating Biden’s ass with every other article. Even JFree is joining in on the ass eating, sheesh!

  21. Lyin’ Ted, like Linseed Graham Cracker, are the reasons Boss Trump lost. They could have dropped their insistence on shooting dopers and clinic physicians, and bringing back Comstockism complete with coathanger birth control in August of 2020. Instead they saddled the Don with the same s****y platform while the Dems, stung by Gary’s 4 million spoiler votes, deleted Biden-Obama-Hillary calls for jailing and executing dopers. Already voters rubbed the rednecks noses in 8 years of Obama, yet Ted and Linseed keep leading the lewsers to defeat even after Jo could have defeated Biden were it not for the looter fascination with fascism. Ha ha ha!

    1. You’re crazy as a loon Hank.

    2. Chloropromazine…

      Ask your doctor if it might be right for you!

      1. They don’t prescribe that much anymore because there are just as effective antipsychotics with less side effects.

        You don’t see the thorazine shuffle as much as you used to.p

    3. Was that drivel supposed to actually make sense?

  22. What principle is yours that turns away from justice?

    1. The hopes of being invited to cocktail parties thrown by wealthy socialist hacks and using that to springboard to a position writing for the Pravda on the Hudson.

  23. As is typical the reason Koch liberaltarians can’t formulate a cogent defense against far left socialist policy. So they attack their friends and hope all works out.

    John Galt is sad for you.

    1. John Galt is sad for you.

      John Galt could not be reached for comment, but I can assure he doesn’t give a shit about Sullum or his garbage hit pieces.

      1. *shrug*

      2. I’m John Galt’s cousin and he says Sullum is a whiny little bitch.

  24. Mr. Sullum is barking up the wrong tree.

    The principles the Republicans are correctly standing up for are opposition to Biden’s Medicare for All proposal, opposition to Biden’s war on our Second Amendment rights, and opposition to Biden’s Green New Deal–and Joe Biden has promised to pursue each and every one of those policies on his campaign website(s).

    The idea that we just should roll over and let Biden destroy private markets in healthcare, violate our Second Amendment rights, and devastate the economy with his Green New Deal–because of the principle that he won an election–is absurd.

    Principled libertarian capitalists should oppose Biden’s ability to implement that agenda by every means we have at our disposal. If Biden wants the pain to stop, he should abandon his awful authoritarian and socialist agenda. Mr. Sullum, what happened to your principles?

    1. The idea that we just should roll over and let Biden destroy private markets in healthcare, violate our Second Amendment rights, and devastate the economy with his Green New Deal–because of the principle that he won an election–is absurd.

      No one here is arguing that, Ken.

      What a lot of people are saying, however, is that the time to oppose Biden’s agenda is when it is proposed in Congress, not by undermining the electoral process itself by refusing to acknowledge the duly elected winner.

      I would expect “principled libertarian capitalists” to consider not just the short-term but the potential long-term effects of their ideas and plans. Throwing doubt on elections themselves will have very bad long-term effects.

      1. Or perhaps after, “Throwing doubt on elections themselves” we will no longer have to watch video’s of electors pull briefcases from under covered tables in the middle of the night going 90%+ in one persons favor and we can ensure integrity by in-person I.D. voting.

        What’s the long-term effect you’re really after anyways? Keeping the process under-cover?

        1. You are referring to the security camera footage from the Atlanta arena that was spread around?

          Do you know *for certain* what was actually happening in that video? If so, how did you arrive at this level of certainty?

          This is what the Fulton County elections director said about what that video contained:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7HjiZ6pj1Q

          What do you think?

          1. Well the video you show; shows a guy not denying a single thing in that video only “and um” we made a mistake about x,y, and z “and um, that’s just normal process” and um…

            Do you know *for certain* what was actually happening in that video is “legal process”? If so, how did you arrive at this level of certainty?

            Comparing “mistakes” with the sudden spike those ballots gave Biden and add in the way those ballots were hidden and add in the way many witnesses claim they were told to leave because the ballot counting was over……….. “Oh look a unicorn!”… No dude; sorry that’s not the transparency I like to see in election security.

          2. Stop looking at the evidence! Look at this gaslight! The Democrats responsible said nothing happened, so nothing happened!

        2. And, TJJ2000, if no one believes that the vote is counted fairly, then they won’t trust the result and it will be a license for any opportunistic leader to simply seize power claiming a “mandate of the silent majority” and rule by authoritarian decree. That is what I would like to avoid in this country. Don’t you?

          1. In contrast with — If too many believe “the vote is counted fairly” while an opportunistic authoritarian leadership seizes power by election fraud.

            No sorry; I’d much rather live in a country skeptical of election fraud than one that “believes” election fraud cannot exist – because one requires more than willy-nilly blind faith in the very people containing that power.

        3. we can ensure integrity by in-person I.D. voting.

          You want to get rid of all mail-in voting, including absentee ballots? Wouldn’t that disenfranchise legitimate voters who simply would be unable to vote on election day?

          1. In-Person early voting takes care of any ‘absentee’ disenfranchisement as well as dismisses any further security concerns.

            The rest is just plain laziness, incompetence or ignorance of making an informed decision on voting. Just as I wouldn’t go down to the local drug rehab to ask for stock option advice it’s not a good thing to be pushing the non-committed people into voting by offering them the enslavement of others as bribery.

            1. While I agree the vast majority of voting should be in-person with an ID (and voting held over a few days to include a weekend), deployed military and others may have very real reasons they are unable to do so and some alternative for them should exist.

          2. Oh, there it is. We can’t have security or transparency cuz he said the magic “Disenfranchise” word.

      2. Fucks off you leftist cunt. You spent lestists spent four years actively eroding trust in elections first with the Russia collusion hoax then by changing the rules and tossing the controls on the scrapheap. If people don’t trust the election was honest you have nobody but yourselves to blame.

    2. Opposition to Biden’s agenda isn’t an excuse to undermine the faith in the entire electoral process. The logic seems to be “Biden is terrible, Trump is better, therefor the election must be invalidated.” It’s an invalidation searching for proof. That’s not honest or moral. I like you Ken, and my failure to criticize (or praise) Biden doesn’t mean I like the guy. Heck, by the logic employed to accuse me of liking him I must also hate him because I’ve never made a positive comment about the guy.

      Long story short – you’re doing more harm than good by trying to invalidate an election not because there is proof that your guy lost because of fraud, but because you don’t like the winner’s policies. As jeff said, there are some serious long term consequences for that tactic.

      1. “Opposition to Biden’s agenda isn’t an excuse to undermine the faith in the entire electoral process.”

        Is there anybody so bad that you’d reverse course on that statement?

        If Hitler or Stalin had won, shouldn’t we throw as much shit in their direction as possible?

        Is Biden as bad as Hitler or Stalin? No, of course not. The point remains that there is a point beyond which a president’s agenda is so bad, his legitimacy needs to be undermined by every available means.

        Yeah, I think Biden’s agenda is beyond that point.

        1. So you’re proposing a revolution. Because that’s what it means when you throw away an election over politics.

          1. Don’t get a hernia running around with those goalposts.

            1. I’m serious Ken. Think about it.

              1. Questioning the validity of Biden’s election isn’t the same as advocating insurrection, but if Biden is able to implement the Medicare for All, comes after our Second Amendment rights the way he’s promised to do, and implements the Green New Deal, questions about the validity of his election will be the least of his problems.

                1. Invalidating the election sans proof is advocating insurrection.

                  1. Only in your mind.

                    Stuffing the ballot box is a great American tradition both inside and outside of politics.

                    And winning elections doesn’t necessarily confer legitimacy to may libertarian mind anyway. Because you won an election for the most part just gives you the right to leave me the fuck alone.

                    1. Power doesn’t equal authority or legitimacy.

                      Sometimes you just gotta accept that shitty things happen that are out of your control, and life can really suck sometimes.

                      John dropped off the planet. I hope he’s on vacation. Thought we was going to have a stroke. Hope he didn’t.

                      And I don’t want you to have a stroke either. If you don’t know of it already, look up the Serenity Prayer. It ain’t just for alcoholics.

                  2. The only people that deny there’s any proof are cocksuckers like you that deliberately ignore it.

                2. I’m not a dick who is trying to trap you with your words. I’m trying to get you to think this all the way through.

                  1. Liar. You are a dick. Admitting the truth is the first step to recovery.

                3. Biden is opposed to Medicare For All, you ignoramus. The far left is already pissed off at Biden for ignoring them in his cabinet selections.

                4. Fuck you Ken, stop lying and supporting the political weaponization of lies.

                  All you are doing is completely undermining your supposed claim that your ideas are so fantastic they deserve near-sedition to champion. Thomas Jefferson can get away with that, not some sniveling rightwing zealot.

                  Destroying trust in democracy is a bad idea. Your ideas are bad. Shut up and stop abetting electoral fraud.

                  1. Actually, Fuck you Tony, stop lying and supporting the political weaponization of lies.

                    You’re the single most dishonest fuck here. You even beat out Jeff and WK in raw mendacity.

                    1. So there’s me and there’s people who think Donald Trump is literally God’s gift to politics.

                      Yeah I’m the one with the problem.

                    2. Tony, Ken has been critical of a great number of Trump’s policies, so to try to equate him as a fan is just idiotic lying, though unsurprising coming from you.

                  2. Like usual, if you reverse every thing Tony says, you get much closer to the truth.

        2. The worst that I saw the past few years is that people believing so fervently that they would ignore the truth, and foster lies in order to do it.

          I’m on the side of truth wherever that falls.
          Joe Biden doesn’t have that kind of power over me. I’m not going to let go of my principles because I think he’s wrong. The Republic will march on after Biden’s passed into catatonia or death.

          1. The Republic will march on after Biden’s passed into catatonia or death.

            We hope.

        3. What I want to know is, how could Biden’s policies be regarded as SO AWFUL that they justify nullification of elections in order to stop them, IN COMPARISON to the huge amount of injustices that we all already suffer on a daily basis?

          Look at health care for example. Yes, Joe Biden wants to further socialize health care. That’s bad. What he is proposing, however, is an extension of Obama Care. He is not proposing full-on British-style socialization. And besides, what we ALREADY HAVE is substantially socialized health care. I think something like 50% of the population already gets government assistance of one form or another when it comes to their health care. Even if Biden’s plan were fully enacted (it won’t be), that number might rise to something like 60%. How is it that having 60% of the population on government-subsidized health care willing to go to REVOLUTIONARY lengths in order to stop it, but the 50% that we have now, it’s totally acceptable to just work ‘within the system’ to try to get that changed?

          I am actually sympathetic to revolutionary anarchism to an extent. If you’re going to oppose coercion, oppose it all the way! But in what universe is 50% socialism “okay” but 60% is “OMG TIME TO MAN THE BARRICADES”?

          1. Let’s say we did nullify elections. Would that be so awful? There’d still be some way of deciding legal matters than by voting. Who’s to say that’d be worse than going by numbers?

            1. Well I don’t know, centuries of history where people were ruled by autocrats tend to demonstrate that those in charge, if not held accountable to the people in some way, will turn into despots and tyrants.

              1. You seem to be mistakenly under the impression that Republicans want to nullify the entire election process instead of just the FRAUD in the process.

                1. My understanding was that Roberta was referring to getting rid of the entire concept of selecting leaders via election, not about this one specifically.

                  1. All elections or just selecting the President? The reason we are in this mess is because the state legislatures abandoned their authority here. When the legislature directly picks the electors, you don’t have this statewide popular vote crap, where a few corrupt officials just in Atlanta can overwhelm the results for the whole state.

                    If the legislature decided that, Atlanta would represent only a few votes so corruption wouldn’t have as much of an impact.

              2. But we should totes accept at face value their assurances that they gained power through completely legitimate means…

                1. No, IMO you should accept, based on the totality of all the evidence, the most reasonable conclusion that may be derived therein. Just like every other time you are asked to form a conclusion based on evidence.

                  1. The evidence they present is literally their word. Nothing more.

          2. Good point, but Biden’s win represents something far worse than some shitty policies. It means that intelligence agencies get away with spying on political candidates, and trying to bring down politicians which don’t do their bidding. And their bidding includes regime change in Middle Eastern countries, and wars for control of the poppy fields in Afghanistan. Biden’s win also means that we are ok with votes being counted without observers, at least in some swing states, going forward. Biden’s win represents an unraveling of the Republic, far more than his shitty policies.

      2. “Long story short – you’re doing more harm than good by trying to invalidate an election . . . “

        Is there anything in the piece above mentioning that Biden’s agenda is nothing but awful from a libertarian capitalist perspective and that it should be opposed?

        Or is that fact not mentioned anywhere?

        The ultimate reason people are reluctant to accept the outcome of the election is because Biden’s and the Democrats’ agenda is unacceptable. Meanwhile, there’s nothing wrong with the Republicans in Congress representing the interests and concerns of their constituents–and I’ve seen polls that show some 70% of Republicans believe the election was fraudulent.

        1. The ultimate reason people are reluctant to accept the outcome of the election is because Biden’s and the Democrats’ agenda is unacceptable.

          From what I’ve seen it has less to do with Biden’s agenda and everything to do with loyalty to El Presidente Vitalicio Trump!

          1. I can see Biden’s agenda on his website(s).

            The way things seem to you may be more about what’s going on in your head.

            Biden’s agenda is objectively unacceptable from a libertarian capitalist perspective, and Republicans are right to do what they can to oppose Biden and his ability to implement his agenda in his first 100 days.

            1. Biden’s agenda is objectively unacceptable from a libertarian capitalist perspective

              I’ve never said otherwise. But that by itself isn’t reason to invalidate an election. There are still impediments in the system to slow down his agenda. It’s not like he’s going to *poof* get everything he wants. Will he get some of it? Probably. Is it worth destroying faith in the electoral system over “prove there wasn’t fraud” switch-the-burden-of-proof sour grapes? I don’t think so.

              1. Are people with torches and pitchforks lining up to storm the electoral college or something?

                1. What if they were? Would you object? Would you be in the crowd?

                  You’re being facetious but what is happening is the modern equivalent.

              2. One of the biggest impediments would be a Republican majority Senate, and Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Trump himself are doing their best to screw that up.

                1. lol – so Trump in your mind is responsible for all the bad things happening. Honestly, you seem to think him more of a god than his fans do l

        2. Then if he takes office, that’s better than gridlock, isn’t it? It means half the country will refuse their edicts.

          That’s it, isn’t it? If 70% don’t believe their government is legitimate, they can’t collect taxes or do practically anything.

      3. Right, the left in this country did absolutely nothing to delegitimize this or any other election. Fuck off you dishonest piece of shit.

    3. Who the fuck taught you how to negotiate, Ken?
      You concede the field to your attacker, then ask for terms – that is your m.o. Do you not realize you’ve already surrendered?
      Take a stand, man.
      Do you believe Biden won through a legitimate election?
      If so, then say what you say your piece for yourself.
      You do not speak for me.
      I do not believe Biden legitimately won, and I’m not going to compromise my position by pretending that isn’t just as important as the policies he intends to implement.
      The left is totalitarian, and they don’t give a fuck about your consent.

      1. Nardz, do you even believe in pluralism anymore (if you ever did)?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_philosophy)

        1. Yes, which is why I reject totalitarian psychotics/trash like you who continue pushing for an ever stronger and more pervasive central government.
          Leftism is totalitarian.
          Deny it all you want, the evidence is centuries old and visible to all of us.

  25. Ted Cruz is the prime example, but not the only one, of why this is no longer a Trump problem but instead has morphed into a Republican Party problem. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Mo Brooks, Loeffler, Perdue, no less 126 House Republicans, who have all essentially done the same as Cruz- attempt to nullify the votes of millions of Americans. To say nothing of all the Republicans not in Congress who have fully endorsed all the authoritarian impulses of a fascist, like Pompeo, Haley, etc. and couple that with most powerful Republican, McConnell, willing to just turn a blind eye to anti-democratic shenanigans.

    These are the people who will be nominated by the GOP in 2024, if it isn’t one of the Trumps. It ain’t gonna be Kasich, Sasse or any other of the few Republicans with a head on their shoulders.

    It’s all only just begun. They ain’t going back. It’s no longer just Trump.

    1. See, this is why Trump had to go. It wasn’t because of policies. It is because he demands 100% loyalty from his tribe for all of his ideas, even the bad ones; which then in turn generates 100% opposition from the other tribe against all of his ideas, even the good ones. And our system of government is just not set up to work like that. It is not a parliamentary system in which the ruling party has total power. There are so many checks and balances – which on the whole are a good thing – that the winner of just one presidential election does NOT have total power and MUST work with the opposition to get anything done. Trump doesn’t understand that and refuses to even consider it. He is not “the boss” like a corporate CEO is. As long as the word compromise is a dirty word, then the current state of affairs will just persist longer and longer until the whole thing just does fall apart and we end up with authoritarian rule.

      1. ^Impressive…. I wouldn’t say Trump had to go but you definitely pointed out the [WE] (i.e. Democratic) side of President Trump. After all; the guy was a registered Democrat at one point.

        Ironically 100% loyalty from his tribe in the Biden scope is well-acknowledged by everyone even to the point of being sought-after by the Republican party as a whole.

        1. Are you kidding? The Democrat argument for getting rid of Trump is something like:

          1. He’s a racist
          2. He’s corrupt
          3. He’s a racist
          4. He gives tax cuts to billionaires
          5. He’s a racist
          6. He’s an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing
          7. He’s a racist idiot

          It isn’t nearly as cerebral as what I laid out.

          1. I never did claim that the 100% loyalty from his tribe Biden (Democratic Candidates) tends to receive was any result of a ‘cerebral’ process… 🙂

            Think you may have mistaken the point I was making.

      2. Dude, Trump did a ton of things that pissed off conservatives. He worked with the left but he did so while sending mean tweets, so it doesn’t count, I guess.

        Frankly, it’s the leftists that demand absolute loyalty to their woke PC bullshit. And the second you step out of line they will cannibalize you.

        1. Agreed. I didn’t vote for Trump, twice, and I really don’t like defending him, but when the alternative is Democrats stealing elections and shitfucking the entire country, the choice is pretty easy.

    2. LOL Kasich.

      It’s all only just begun. They ain’t going back. It’s no longer just Trump.

      Why is it leftists act so shocked when they realize someone might put up a real, actual fight against them?

      1. Because the GOPe used to bend over and ask for another.
        It’s probably why Sullum misses them so badly.

    3. Who cares who’ll be nominated by the GOP in 2024? If they succeed, there won’t be any more federal elections by 2024, they’ll have abolished the federal government directly by non-cooperation.

    4. Kasich seems sane. Sasse is a neocon loon.

  26. Seriously, Ken. You act as if Biden, a career Washington politician is Fidel Castro. I just don’t understand the pearl-clutching over Biden. The “war” against the Second Amendment will run squarely into the wall of the Supreme Court. Uh, employer-funded healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA… how much of a free market do you think there really is in America? The bulk of Trump supporters care less about “free markets” than continuing to receive their government entitlements. The Green New Deal? Is that even a thing? Even if the Democrats miraculously grab the two Georgia Senate seats, the vote margin is paper thin. There’s just not enough support in Congress to enact anything close to AOC’s fever dream.

    Biden is nothing more than Obama with less personal charisma. And the Republicans are just a different kind of awful.

    1. “The “war” against the Second Amendment will run squarely into the wall of the Supreme Court.”

      You mean like Kelo v. City of New London, Gonzales v. Raich, and the “penaltax” decision?

      “How much of a free market do you think there really is in America?”

      Because private markets in healthcare aren’t really free, we should let Biden and the Democrats destroy them completely? Apologizing for socialism is beneath you.

      “The Green New Deal? Is that even a thing?”

      Yes. It’s on Biden’s website. And Joe Biden is promising to enact legislation that will eliminate all carbon emissions from power production in ten years. He’ll push for it in his first 100 days.

      1. “Biden is nothing more than Obama with less personal charisma. And the Republicans are just a different kind of awful.”

        Biden’s Medicare for All proposal is far worse than ObamaCare.

        Biden’s promises on going after our Second Amendment rights are far worse than anything Obama or Clinton every tried. He’s actually promising to institute a nationwide relinquishment [confiscation] program in cooperation with local law enforcement.

        Biden’s Green New Deal is far worse than Obama’s Paris Climate accord, too.

        And to the extent that the Republicans are doing what they can to oppose all of this, they’re on the side of libertarian capitalism.

        P.S. You’re usually really well informed on the issues. You don’t seem to know much about what Biden is promising to do.

        1. He’s actually promising to institute a nationwide relinquishment [confiscation] program in cooperation with local law enforcement.

          For one thing the Supremes won’t allow it, and secondly there are plenty of enforcement agencies that wouldn’t play along.

          Biden’s Green New Deal is far worse than Obama’s Paris Climate accord, too.

          Which amounted to a whole lot of unenforceable nothing.

          And to the extent that the Republicans are doing what they can to oppose all of this, they’re on the side of libertarian capitalism.

          Republicans are on the side of Trump. Trade wars and protectionism is hardly libertarian.

          You don’t seem to know much about what Biden is promising to do.

          Why should we? You’ve memorized his website while clutching pearls so hard they’ve turned to dust.

          1. JOyG said Biden is no worse than Obama, and I refuted that on three points that matter.

            You’re ignoring JOyG’s points I was responding to and replacing them with observations of your own–that aren’t really related.

            Biden isn’t really worse than Obama because the Paris Accords were unenforceable? That doesn’t even make sense.

            Why would I respond to that?

            1. You’re the one who compared the Green New Deal to the Paris Accords, not me.

              Remember that the president is not a dictator. What you propose, throwing away the election and installing the leader of your choice, well if that isn’t installing a dictator it’s pretty damn close.

              1. “You’re the one who compared the Green New Deal to the Paris Accords, not me.”

                No, I contrasted them, and one is worse than the other in all sorts of ways, including its enforceability.

                Why is that confusing?

                1. We have different assumptions. It seems that you’re assuming he’ll get his way with everything, and I’m assuming he might get a few of his policies after them being watered down and pissed on.

                  1. I’m assuming he might get a few of his policies after them being watered down and pissed on.

                    There is a saying: “Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.”

                    1. basically

                  2. I’m assuming that if he doesn’t get his way it will be because of Republican opposition, which is a fairly safe assumption, and seeing so many Republicans oppose him out of the gate is probably a good thing if we’re depending o them to save us from his awful agenda.

                    1. Your pom-poms are getting worn. You need new ones.

                    2. If Biden’s agenda isn’t implemented, it will be because of Republican opposition–regardless of how you feel about me personally.

                    3. I don’t feel about you personally.

                    4. Then why are you talking about my pom-poms?

                      Even if I were a huge enemy of Donald Trump, Republican opposition would be the key to defeating Biden’s agenda anyway.

                      It has nothing to do with me or anything about me. That’s all in your head.

                    5. Your kneepads are worn out, sarcasmic.

          2. “It’s ok to give totalitarians absolute power, because other Top Men won’t enforce it.”

            Brilliant.

        2. Biden’s health care proposal IS worse than ObamaCare. But it’s not “Medicare For All”. That is a Bernie Sanders thing. You undermine your own position when you cannot accurately describe what you are arguing against. That is the Trumpist way: try to win support through demagoguery and fear.

          1. It’s not “Medicare For All”.

            —-ChemJeff

            Is it surprising to anyone that ChemJeff has no idea what he’s talking about?

            “Biden-Harris will work to lower health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable health care through a Medicare-like public option.”

            —-Joe Biden’s transition team website.

            https://buildbackbetter.gov/priorities/covid-19/

            From elsewhere on the same site (link below):

            “[Joe Biden] is working to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care, by providing a public option and lowering costs for care and for prescription drugs.

            —-Joe Biden’s transition team website.

            It’s not “Medicare for All”. It’s a “Medicare-like” “public option” for “every American”!

            What a fuckin’ joke.

            1. But you see, Biden doesn’t *call* it “Medicare For All”, so… it’s not… or something…

            2. Yes, you successfully copy-pasted the relevant sections from Biden’s website.

              Now, here is Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare For All” plan:

              https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/03/politics/medicare-for-all-annotated/

              “The Medicare for All plan would leave intact the current infrastructure of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, but nationalize the health insurance industry. Nearly all the money individuals and employers currently pay into the system as well as much of the money states pay would, under Sanders’ plan, instead go through the federal government.”

              So, let’s compare:

              Biden’s plan: More individuals would have the option of obtaining government-subsidized health insurance if they wanted it. Private health insurance remains available.

              Sanders’ plan: Every individual would be forced to obtain government-funded health insurance. Private health insurance is banned. No choice is allowed.

              Are they both bad? Yes.
              Are they the same thing? No.

              Would Biden’s plan take us further down the road towards fully socialized medicine? Oh sure. But here is a news update for you, we’re already quite a ways down that road already. If the current 50% of people having government-subsidized health insurance isn’t enough for you to consider fomenting insurrection and rebellion, why would Biden’s 50% + X amount do so?

            3. You’re a congenital liar, Ken.

              Biden ran AGAISNT Medicare For All and AOC’s Green New Deal and all you have are your lies that he wants both.

              1. And you’re so stupid, you don’t even realize those quotes were taken from his own transition website.

                1. You say yourself that his web site only wants a public option. Do you know how unpopular a public option would be?

                  Who in the hell would elect to buy government run insurance? Obamacare proved that private health insurance costs fronted by a lousy federal portal is no better than what they could buy from Kaiser.

                  1. You know what Buttplug, Ken contributes a lot here with detailed, well thought out comments.

                    You know who doesn’t? You and your Jackoff Ace sockpuppet. You’re always spouting off Facebook-level prog homilies and catchphrases you found on Democratic Underground.
                    Even Sqrlsy outshines you intellectually, which must be embarrassing as hell.

                    1. Incidentally, the public option has always been the introductory path to single payer. Here’s the King of the Public Option, Jacob Hacker (Obama era) talking about it.

                      “Someone once said to me, ‘This is a Trojan horse for single-payer”, and I said, ‘Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there! I’m telling you. We’re gonna get there.'”

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTfZJBYo1I

                      The public option is to Medicare for All what going swimming is to getting wet. They’re inseparable.

                      The reason these people don’t know that is because they’re ignorant. Their own lefties advocate the public option specifically because it’s Medicare for All.

                      And why would anyone argue that opening up a taxpayer funded, Medicare like option for every American doesn’t eventually lead to Medicare for All? The most likely answers are because they’re unknowledgeable, at best, or, in the case of some of them, they’re fundamentally stupid people.

                      The reason they don’t understand why opening a taxpayer funded Medicare like option for every American leads to Medicare for All is the same reason Shrike reads Biden’s website and claims that quotes from it don’t represent Biden’s positions on the issues.

                      There are reasons why people like that are stupid, but even if we start rationalizing their stupidity (because they’re partisan or something), that doesn’t change the fact that we are talking fundamentally about stupidity here. I’d cite Occam’s’ razor, but have you ever seen some of these people put together a coherent argument about anything?

                      Broken clocks tell perfect time twice a day. Shrike and some of the others are batting zero for thousands of games. I’ve never seen some of them hit a single pitch.

              2. Don’t believe your own lying eyes!

                Just trust Shrike?

                How fuckin’ stupid are you, Shrike?

                Go damn, that’s some amazin’ stupid.

              3. Shrike is a fucking idiot.

                “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.”

                —-Joe Biden

                https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/

                1. “Mr. Biden’s plan outlines specific and aggressive targets, including achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035”

                  —-New York Times

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/us/politics/biden-climate-plan.html

                  Who cares if it’s AOC’s plan?

                  Biden’s Green New Deal still eliminates all fossil fuels from power production in ten years–including natural gas.

                  And Shrike is a moron.

                  1. 15, 10 . . . whatever. It’s fucking awful.

                2. That is not AOC’s Green New Deal and you know it. You’ve been corrected many times.

                  Joe Biden rejects Green New Deal and other progressive policies in debate, irking activists

                  https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/09/30/joe-biden-rejects-green-new-deal-and-other-progressive-policies-in-debate-irking-activists/

                  Why are you so dishonest?

                  1. “Who cares if it’s AOC’s plan?”

                    —-Ken Shultz

                    You’re a fucking idiot, Shrike.

                    You think we’re supposed to be okay with Biden replacing all fossil fuels in power production over 15 years–and squandering $10 trillion or so in his Green New Deal–because it isn’t AOC’s plan?!

                    That’s stupid.

                    It doesn’t make sense.

                    You’re a stupid person.

                  2. Did you get banned for linking to child pornography?

                    That’s what people say!

                    If that’s the case, I suspect it’s because you were too stupid to know that was likely to get you banned.

                    It’s the same level of stupidity on display here–if not the same kind.

                    1. Be honest Ken and I will quit calling your lies out.

                      You also lied about Biden being “beholden” to the far left and would choose their cabinet selections. The far left is howling about how centrist his cabinet is.

                      Joe Biden’s Cabinet Is a Lost Cause for the Left
                      It’s time for insurgents to make a break from the Democratic establishment and hone America’s future outside the halls of power.

                      https://newrepublic.com/article/160432/biden-cabinet-progressive-defeat-2020

                      Ha! I love it! The far left is pissed off and you are wrong yet again. A two-fer.

                    2. Oh, well if a glorified DNC newsletter like the New Republic is saying that, then it must be true.

                    3. I’m being called a liar by someone who’s so stupid, he’s claiming that he knows more about what Biden supports than Biden’s own campaign website and his transition team website.

                      There’s a reason you make all the stupid mistakes you do.

                      It’s because you’re stupid.

            4. At this point I think Ken is just trying to skate by on a fallacy of equivocation. Because Biden wants to open Medicare up to a public option, that would be available for all Americans, then therefore that is the same as Bernie’s “Medicare For All“, which is a specific plan to nationalize the entire health insurance industry.

              That’s just lazy, Ken. Very lazy.

              1. You’re an ignoramus.

                Just because you need the blanks filled in for you doesn’t mean the rest of us are as ignorant as you are. Most libertarians have known about the public option since the ACA was proposed, at least.

                https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/public-option-rises-again

                You’re not still pretending to be a libertarian are you?

                1. That article is making the same point that I am making:

                  The “public option” is not the same thing as single-payer (i.e., the actual Medicare For All, Bernie’s plan), but it could eventually lead to single-payer at some point in the future.

                  So, once again:
                  Biden’s plan: We’re going to have a public option, and it might lead to single-payer someday.
                  Bernie’s plan: We’re going to have single-payer right now.

                  Are they the same plan? Yes or no?

                  This isn’t a “libertarian”/”non-libertarian” thing. This is about constructing arguments against what Biden’s agenda actually is, and not against some other agenda proposed by some guy named Bernie who didn’t win. Just like the media undermines its credibility when it does not accurately relay the news and facts about a particular issue, you are undermining your own credibility when you choose to substitute some alternate agenda for the one that is actually on the table.

                  1. The public option didn’t pass when Dems had 60 votes in the Senate in 2009. It was originally included in Obamacare but got yanked out to appease Dems in insurance states like Connecticut.

                    It has zero chance of success 2021-2024.

                    1. Bernie’s mind rays can’t even get Bernie out of a Democratic primary, let alone a law passed through Congress.

                      But it is interesting that people are arguing “I disagree with Biden’s policies, therefore he was illegitimately elected.”

                  2. ChemJeff is an idiot.

                  3. If two trains are headed to the same concentration camp, what does it matter if they take different routes?

              2. Yes, Biden is a centrist who won’t pass any far left Bernie legislation due to a lack of support among Democrats and a suddenly thrifty Senate GOP again. With Trump gone the big spending is FINISHED.

                Amy Klobuchar said Medicare For All wouldn’t get 10 Dem votes in the Senate.

                Ken is too stupid to accept reality.

                We have glorious gridlock again!

                1. NEW big spending I should add. We’re stuck with the $2 trillion Trump deficits for a long time.

                  1. Still pretending Pelosi is Donald Trump, huh?

        3. Promising? Oh, well, that’s different because we all know a politician’s promise made during a campaign is the gold standard of commitment right up there with “pinky swears” and “cross my heart’s.’

          I really don’t enjoy being snarky, but seriously, Ken… you’re getting your underwear in a bind over what Biden might do? If the “blue wave” had materialized and if the Senate and House had swung much deeper to “D” range, I’d at least give this a bit more thought. But rather than “refute” any points, you’re simply offering speculation based on what you think Biden wants to do without any serious consideration of what might be possible under the circumstances. Worst case scenario, both Georgia seats go Democrat. Even then, it’s a Harris tie breaker which means every bit of significant legislation needs zero defections. Zero.

          All of the Supreme Court decisions you cited are pre-ACB. Roberts surprised some people (not me) because he’s an institutionalist. Absent the fifth vote he needs, we’re going to see some different decision, and at a much different pace. As for single-payer socialized medicine, I don’t see the U.S. moving much beyond the ACA. Oh, and Medicare Part D was pushed for and signed by a Republican. Finally, the Green New Deal is a unicorns-and-rainbows pipe dream. A legitimate concern is the bureaucratic state (like the EPA) reinstating a bunch of Obama-era rules and restocking the agencies with “government uber alles” officials, but that executive branch overreach will be more frequently challenged to the Supreme Court and Roberts (plus 3) will trim back administrative overreach.

          Campaign stump speeches do not translate well into governance. Even if Bernie Sanders had been elected, he would run into the wall of establishment D.C. Biden isn’t going to cut military spending because they are too many powerful pockets being lined. Biden isn’t going to cut entitlements because no one ever does. It’s not that I don’t know what Biden is promising; it’s that I’ve been alive long enough to know that politicians’ promises aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

          1. Oops. Roberts plus 3 will not be enough to trim back administrative overreach.

      2. “Kelo v. City of New London”

        And we are supposed to look to Trump as a champion against this? Look up Vera Coking.

        1. Actually, that was one of three examples showing that the Supreme Court can’t be depended on to do the right thing. It didn’t have anything to do with Trump. That appears to be about what’s going on in your head. I also might have listed Dred Scott. The point is that anyone who voted for Biden’s horrific agenda because they think the Supreme Court can be depended on to do the right thing is making some big assumptions without much of a foundation. The Supreme Court often gets it wrong and often defers to both Congress and the President.

          1. And I gave an example of how Donald Trump preyed on a widow, which is definitely not doing the right thing. Yet you want us to look to him as a champion to rally around. This is what moral bankruptcy looks like.

            1. You’re having a completely different conversation than the one you’re responding to.

              Someone suggested that the Supreme Court would save us from Joe Biden horrible agenda.

              I gave three examples of them failing to save us. It didn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump.

              Because an answer to one question isn’t the answer to every other unrelated question doesn’t mean it wasn’t the correct answer to the first question.

              1. White “Knight” can only respond to the voices in his head.

            2. You’re an idiot. Ken isn’t a Trump fan. He stated in his reply to you directly that his point had nothing to do with Trump. Yet you double down because you really think guilty association to be all powerful, when in fact your just a clown with poor reading comprehension skills.

          2. That’s a crowd of straw men. No sane libertarian is “depending” on the Supreme Court. Roberts is an institutionalist who became the swing vote to keep the Court from moving too far too fast. He doesn’t have the votes to do that now. There are a shit ton of issues that can be revisited with a solid 5-4 majority like regulatory takings, Citizen’s United, nondelegation doctrine, Chevron doctrine, etc. Trimming back the unfettered power of the federal government and the imperial presidency, not a bad thing.

            I’m not saying a Biden administration won’t be it’s own shit show, but given how crappy Republican administrations have been (from a libertarian standpoint) and the institutional obstacles to implementing the progressive agenda I think it’s essentially “Meet the New Boss.”

      3. So they enact that last bit of legislation. You really think 10 years from now at all the power plants they douse the fire and say, “Well, that’s the law. No more electricity.”? They’ll laugh at it.

        1. See Venezuela for an idea of how the next decade will play out if they are not stopped now.

        2. “So they enact that last bit of legislation. You really think 10 years from now at all the power plants they douse the fire and say, “Well, that’s the law. No more electricity.”? They’ll laugh at it.”

          That’s a question that deserves our attention.

          There was someone here a few weeks ago in comments arguing that it wasn’t ObamaCare’s fault that you couldn’t keep your plan if you liked your plan and could’t keep your doctor if you liked your doctor. And the reason, she argued, was because there’s no way Obama or the architects of ObamaCare could have known that mandating coverage for a plethora of conditions would mean the abolition of high deductible plans. The problem with that theory is that the consequences of those regulations were not only foreseeable but also foreseen.

          I’ll never forget the day my mom called me up and told me that her employer said she couldn’t keep her plan, even though she liked her oncologist, because her plan wasn’t allowed anymore–and they didn’t care that she was only halfway through chemotherapy. She had to change doctors, and she had to change plans, and the new plan just didn’t cover the same things. The whole purpose of progressivism is to force us to make sacrifices for the greater good–especially for the good of their favored identity groups. That wasn’t an unforeseen consequence. That was forced sacrifice. They did that to her on purpose.

          For libertarian capitalists of average intelligence, and even European style social democrats of below average intelligence, it was not necessary for Hugo Chavez to nationalize the grocery stores and set the price of food below market in order to see what the consequences would be. We already knew that would result in food shortages, black market prices for food skyrocketing, and malnutrition on a massive scale. Rather than learning from their mistakes, wouldn’t it have been better to avoid them in the first place?

          You’re saying that ten years from now, my fellow Americans will recognize the folly of their ways because they’ll have suffered the consequences of their foolish choices in 2021. I’m here to tell you, “That’s not good enough”. The negative consequences of squandering trillions of dollars to eliminate things like low CO2 natural gas from power generation are both foreseeable and foreseen (especially in terms of stagnant economic growth and skyrocketing energy prices), and I want to avoid the negative consequences entirely. We can’t do that ten years from now, and that’s the problem with the people of tomorrow learning from our mistakes.

          I have no interest in pointless suffering.

          We need to avoid the negative consequences beforehand.

          1. You think posting on H&R is going to do that? The U.S. government under a Democrat or Republican is a steam roller. Individual citizens are ants. Or maybe small mites on the backs of ants. Survival (or better) involves two basic steps. One, recognize that one is in the path of the machine. Two, get the fuck out of the way. If you think it’s your patriotic duty to get squished, OK. I understand you think a Republican president is better than a Democratic one. My position: there isn’t enough “better” there to change the direction of the machine, or even its speed.

            1. Well, then, we’re screwed, because there’s not enough libertarians to even make the mite on the back of the ant change direction, much less the whole ant.

            2. Except a Republican in charge would not be pushing for a Green New Deal, confiscation of legal firearms, or medicare for all. So that seems like a giant change in the direction, speed, and danger the giant steamroller poses.

  27. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

    1. But why leave a steady job at ShopRite?

  28. This is the kind of drivel I expect from The Intercept. This is effectively just another left-wing author spouting hatred at a popular target.

    What we really need right now is a synthesis between apparent observations of election wrongdoing and the results of ongoing legal battles from a quasi-objective perspective. That’s tough work.

    1. Objectively this election was at least as above-board as any other. Nobody has explained why Trump and his cultists get to impose their fantasy land on the rest of us until they’re good and ready to accept reality, just because they whine so loudly.

      1. There were dead people voting, statistically unlikely events, and vote watchers ilegally turned away. I don’t think Trump won, but I think any libertarian should be concerned that our electoral process be fair.

        1. I am concerned, and it’s very much not fair. Why is it fair that the Republican Party gets so much affirmative action in the electoral college, Senate, and partisan judicial decisions that let them flagrantly disenfranchise people?

          The whole thing should be burned down and rebuilt fairly.

          It’s just that what you’re talking about isn’t real, and you’ve had dozens of court cases to try to prove otherwise and have failed.

          1. “affirmative action in the electoral college, Senate, and partisan judicial decisions”

            Oh wow. You really are just copypasting arguments from your Media Matters cheat sheet without understanding their pertinence or validity, huh.
            Have you ever heard of Federalism you stupid fuck.

            1. I’ve heard every last one of the self-serving Republican excuses for why such a terrible system should be kept, but there is no good reason if you’re not a Republican.

              I have a brain and an education. I don’t need to be told what to think about a system I judge to be broken and unfair by dead men who wore girl clothes and owned slaves.

              1. I’ll ask you a different way, because apparently you really are that retarded.
                Do you understand that the United States of America is a union of states and not a unitary state like Denmark or North Korea?

                1. Tony has come right out and said the U.S. Constitution is a mistake in history.. He doesn’t belong here at all and should move.

                  1. Anyone who believes the constitution is flawless doesn’t understand the first thing about the enlightenment principles that inspired it.

                    1. Right; It was just a flawed mistake in history by it’s own accord – Your not even arguing what I stated whether you realize it or not.

                2. Yet we only get one president, not 50, and the only time the electoral college ever has a practical function is to accidentally install an incompetent against the will of the people voting on the matter.

                  It doesn’t even serve its original purpose. We can be federalist and still have a bad presidential election system.

        2. Actually, observers were blocked legally from witnessing the vote count, at least in one swing state (Pennsylvania). The state Supreme Court made sure of it. That makes it more scary than just some good old fashioned ballot stuffing.

          1. Not a true thing.

            1. You lie so often, I reflexively believe the opposite of anything you say. And up until this point, I figured there was just the normal localized vote fraud which likely didn’t affect the outcome, but now….

            2. Tony, I read the primary source (the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision). It’s not very long and it’s in the public domain. The weaselly legalese states that observers must be given access (a physical presence near where votes are counted) but there is no obligation to provide meaningful access (that is, election officials can block their view, keep them too far away from the ballots to see anything, or otherwise impede them from any meaningful manner of observing the vote count). The ruling also establishes that there is no fundamental right for observers to audit ballots. This is a step back from transparency in comparison with previous elections.

              1. So I’m supposed to trust you over the judicial system.

                1. No. You should trust your reading skills. The documents are in the public domain.

      2. Objectively Tony eats shit and doesn’t know truth from lies.

  29. Well, Fox News has abandoned Trump’s inept legal efforts to overturn the election and is doing the fake Hunter Biden “scandal” all day long.

    BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!!!!!! DERP!!!!! BLOOP!!!!

    24/7 rage does not make a scandal real.

    1. How about “mUh RuSsIaN cOlLuSiOn!”? Bet you’ll say THAT was a real scandal, because REASONS!!!

    2. You an Tony are more butthurt then even the most ardent Trump supporter. It’s funny to read though, so thank you for that.

  30. Ted Cruz knows the only way to get ahead in the Republican Party is to shamelessly pander more than everyone else, but that’s only because Republican voters terrible, gullible bigots whose drug of choice is lies and Vicodin.

    The surprising thing would be if an institution that relied so much on fear and lies actually had decent people running it. Psychopathy, not a new thing in fascist politics.

    Maybe without his Harvard degree, Ted Cruz would just be another random guy who makes furniture out of human skin.

    1. Human skin makes lousy furniture.
      Coin purses and tobacco pouches are where it is best put to use.

    2. Creepy Tony, the Reasonista most likely to become Jeffrey Dahmer, is talking about other people being psychopaths?
      I’m assuming that the human skin bit is another one of your fantasies being projected.

    3. Poor victim Tony simply needs his daily fix of lies and projection to ensure he feels better about himself. Too much quiet time and he might realize how pathetic his life is, so he keeps busy.

    4. Go post your masturbatory fantasies elsewhere, shit-eater.

  31. Of course, the Democrats spending four years claiming Russian collusion with the Trump Administration wasn’t unprincipled at all.

    Anyone got cites for Reason articles about this?

    1. Man you guys whine when the Benghazi is on the other foot don’t you.

      Trump is the most corrupt president ever by far. He actually bribed a foreign country for personal gain.

      Your talking points are irrelevant. “Trump didn’t commit treason with Russia, that means he’s as innocent as a babe in fresh snow!”

      Well he’s committing treason now so who gives a fuck. Be happy we’re rid of his stench. The rest of the planet certainly is.

      1. Now we have a new, ever-more-corrupt stench, now. I’m not sorry if I don’t sound grateful.

        1. Nobody’s asking for your gratitude, just that you stop breaking the constitution.

          1. The same Constitution that you’re constantly bitching about?

            1. Well I don’t want your grubby authoritarian hands on it.

              1. No, you want your grubby authoritarian hands on it, you and all your shit-eating friends.

                1. Oop my mistake, I’m assuming you have friends.

          2. Taking something to court does not equate to breaking the constitution.

    2. There was collusion or cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian officials:

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/05/10/transcript-of-the-russian-behind-the-dreaded-trump-tower-meeting-revealed/?sh=29f222581507

      Impeachment but no conviction.

      1. What are you trying to pull? The article literally says the opposite.

        “The release came after the Department of Justice and Director of National Intelligence threw many buckets of cold water on the Russia investigation last week.
        While many still disagree and continue believing that Trump colluded, there is no sense arguing anymore. The transcripts speak for themselves.
        To a person, no one had any evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government, or Russian individuals, to beat Hillary.
        If not for the coronavirus pandemic, these transcripts would be the biggest story in America right now.
        Takeaways From 166 Pages: No Russian Spies”

        Literally, the whole article disproves your statement point by point.

        I knew you were stupid but to post an article that explicitly refutes you, because you were to lazy to read it, is exceptionally retarded.

        1. or cooperation

          Face it, the Con Man worked with Russia to “find dirt on Hillary”. That is why the FBI needed a FISA warrant – treason.

          1. You’re so stupid and such a liar, it’s starting to get funny. You were just proven wrong by your citation and your reply to that was equivalent to “had my fingers in my ears, nah, nah, nah, can’t hear you, I’m still right”. It’s lol Teri tory for sure.

            1. What do you expect from someone whose name is a slam on someone who hasn’t been politically relevant since 2008?

  32. It is not about Trump as a person, or even a leader. Back when the ACLU was still the UCLU, they defended lots of groups that they did not agree with. The point was to preserve everyone’s rights.
    Fighting election fraud is not about worshiping Trump, or even liking him. It is about preserving people’s faith in the election process. Right now, about half of Americans believe that the whole process is rigged. They see Washington as a bunch of people who think they are a new aristocracy. If you complain, they will only scoff at you and say- “What are you going to do about it, vote at me?”

    1. So will one more court throwing their complaints out for lack of evidence convince them, or will it take another 50?

      Everyone deserves a helping hand sometimes but you gotta come to the table with a basic understanding of how the rule of law works.

      1. If anyone believes you understand the rule of law please raise your hand.

        Nope no one.

        1. I’m not talking about needing a degree from Harvard, though they apparently don’t screen for tampon-faced fucknuttery if Ted Cruz is any indication.

          This was an election between two candidates. One of them doesn’t get extra deference to his fragile wittle fee fees either because he’s incumbent or because he screeches the most on Twitter.

          Is Joe Biden entitled to finger rape the legal system because of all the Republican neo-Jim Crow fuckery? Or might we settle on not having a coup attempt so we can all get on with our lives?

          1. The rule of law includes dealing with these stupid lawsuits.

            If you believed in the rule of law you’d just be sighing and waiting for the courts to work it out – as they are doing.

            But you don’t. All you know is ‘my team won’ and you’re pissed that there’s a chance, however tiny, that they didn’t.

            So you keep pushing the ‘shut up and take it’s line – which just makes everyone else that much more skeptical.

            1. Yes, you have me pegged all right. I’m positively on fire with outrage that Trump is continuing to drag the Republican Party into his psychological meltdown and urging his supporters to distrust ever voting again.

              Stop. Don’t. Come back.

              1. The only one with a psychological meltdown is you, Tony.

          2. Jim Crow was the Democrats Tony

            1. Better to assume I know history rather than so obviously admit you have a complex about being racist.

        2. My understanding is from Cryptome: the law itself does not have force. Our ever-expanding set of vague and obscure rules becomes a cudgel with which the state can punish those whom it deems threats.

          1. See: LA, where outdoor dining is banned under threat of pulling restaurants’ licenses, but movie studios are permitted to set up cafeteria tents right next door

      2. What motivates judges? Justice? Haha.

        Not until judges are threatened with justice too.

        1. And by justice you mean lynch mobs.

          1. Liars don’t think they’ll be caught.

            Up until a few years ago, the lies of the establishment class conspiracies were air tight without physical evidence. Who would believe your word against theirs.

            But we have personal recording technology today that could physically capture every lie. We only need the right to use it everywhere we are and the threat of criminalizing every lie.

            No lynch mobs are required.

            1. Wow libertarianism has really changed.

              1. I thought you’d advocate lynch mobs, hypocrite.

                Yet you think cops should wear body cameras for the same reason.

                1. I don’t follow. Yes it makes some sense to monitor lynch mobs like the cops. The FBI certainly thinks so.

                  1. I used to think like you. Unlike you, my views changed.

          2. Exactly. If they actually ruled according to the constitution and in favor of Trump, a mob of crazed Biden supporters would burn their house down.

      3. I don’t think it is a lack of evidence. Nobody wants to be involved in such a case because of the potential for violence and disruption. Even if Trump is 100% right, the damage that could be done by bringing justice to the perpetrators might be worse than the effects of letting them get away with it, at least in the short term.
        Trump is only a person. What matters is the state of the republic.
        Of course, the likelihood of this happening emboldens further efforts to corrupt the election system.
        No matter what happens at this point, half the people are going to think the system is rigged, unless we reform it to make it reasonably foolproof and transparent.

        1. The only difference between this and other elections is that Trump lies every day about it being fraudulent.

          We don’t need to fix problems that don’t exist. But Trump is a problem that exists. We fixed that.

          1. If you honestly believe there’s zero need for improvement in elections and their transparency you are dumber than I thought.

            1. Tony is dumber than everyone thinks.

    2. Did you miss the part where Trump personally insulted Cruz and his family members? Even before the election cases came up, Cruz cravenly put his personal honor and the honor of his family aside to suck up to Trump. Pathetic.

      1. “If I don’t behave like a servile coward, I’ll just lose a primary to one of the real crazies.”

        Each new generation of crazy says the same thing, of course.

        1. To both shitstain and TDS victim; did either of you have a point?
          The world will thank you: Fuck off and die.

      2. Your complaint is that Cruz is not as petty as you’d like him to be

      3. Did you miss the part where Harris accused her running mate of being a racist and then cravenly put her personal honor and the honor of her family aside to suck up to Biden? Pathetic.

      4. Poor little WK. So hurt by Cruz working for Trump, he has to whine about it constantly.

  33. “a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully”

    Politics, is usually relative, and involves a choice between two power-hungry people.

    Is Trump a paragon of honesty, morality, selflessness, and gentleness? Obviously not. Certainly not if we were comparing him to, I suppose, Washington or [trigger warning] Lincoln.

    But Trump is being compared to Biden, not to Washington or Lincoln.

    So how does Biden measure up?

    He’s not particularly honest, or moral, as the previously-suppressed news stories about his family are showing.

    I would also have supposed that, from Reason’s point of view, someone who is prepared to send men with guns to enforce a broad social vision, is a bully. Yet doesn’t this describe Biden?

    1. I will stipulate that Trump is on one level more narcissistic than Biden – Trump certainly focuses on himself a lot.

      Biden tends more to focus on what’s good for his family and backers. Oh, and by the way, to focus on these things at the expense of the public interest. Does that fit the definition of narcissism? If not, we need better words.

      1. Trump put his children on the government payroll and funneled untold amounts of tax money to their business interests.

        Maybe she’s born with it. Maybe it’s projection.

        1. “Trump put his children on the government payroll”

          Gee Tony, somehow you forgot to mention that Trump and his family donate their entire salaries back to the US Treasury. Just a momentary lapse or is it because your a mendacious fuck?

          Now tell us again how Barron and Ivanka are far more evil than Joe Biden’s bribe-taking, crackhead, pedophile son.

          1. Do they donate the power and prestige of working in the West Wing, or do they get to keep that?

            You people are terrible corruption sleuths.

            1. So you don’t have anything so you spew out some random bullshit.
              Media Matters needs to get its fifty-cents back. You’re not worth it.

              1. We were talking about corruption and then you implied that it’s not corruption if a Republican does it, at which point one wonders if we’re talking about anything other than the contents of your cult’s recruitment pamphlet.

                1. Fuckwit Tony thinks just the fact of a Republican being in government makes them corrupt.

    2. Sorry to tell you but the election’s over and Biden won, terrible ideas and corruption or no.

      Remember how Trump forced the entire country to endure four years of disaster, incompetence, and insanity? Now it’s Biden’s turn.

      No doubt you’ll find that he surpasses Trump’s cosmic buffoonery the moment he mispronounces something or salutes with a coffee in his hand.

      1. “No doubt you’ll” [insert silly mind-reading attempts]

        As with any President, I *want* Biden to succeed – at doing exactly as his oath of office prescribes – especially the part about protecting the Constitution.

        As with all modern Presidents, this may not happen, and his previous associations leave room to doubt it will happen.

        Yet one can certainly hope.

        No need to fear – whatever may be disclosed about the 2020 election in the future, the disclosure will come after Biden and Harris are safely installed in office.

        1. I’m sure if we looked into it we’d discover rampant cheating on the part of Trump just like last time, maybe even with foreign help, but my certainty that Trump cheated his way to a loss is worth the toilet paper it’s written on in a system of laws.

          However equally terrible Biden may be, at least we know he’s never attempted a coup out in the open and brought 30% the country along with him, and that’s something.

          1. I didn’t say Biden took part in the attempted coup against Trump by certain Democrats and government officials during the previous four years. I presume that’s the attempted coup to which you were referring?

            My skepticism of Biden rests on other grounds, but I am ready to be pleasantly surprised if I see him defending the Constitution and I’ll happily say how relieved I am at this welcome albeit belated change in his behavior. Again, modern Presidents – yes, including the Orange One – have not fully defended the Constitution, so Biden would be breaking with a longstanding bipartisan tradition.

          2. I’m sure if we looked into it Hillary engaged in rampant cheating: but we don’t and we never will.

            Because shit stain faggots like you never do.

            Thus our sovereign nation dies a little each day.

            1. Maybe they should have hauled her before Congress 17 times and have absolutely nothing to show for it, again.

              Every fascist family is fascist in the same way.

              1. You mean fascist like marching in the streets, burning and looting, censoring speech, burning books, Aktion T4 stuff, attacking opponents, grabbing guns and fixing elections? Or do you mean everyone who disagrees with you?

                1. Tony thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a fascist, and if he had his way, they’d all be hauled off to the camps.

                2. No I mean radical rightwing nationalists who base their politics on attacking socialists and journalists, engage in anti-democratic political idolatry and propaganda, and who are staging a coup attempt. You know, fascists.

                  1. Now change rightwing nationalists to leftwing marxists, and let me know what you come up with.

                  2. You only see that in your own head. A mass hallucination by leftists who confuse MAGA hats and American flags with swastikas.

                    Must be a new side effect from your chronic ass eating addiction.

          3. I’m sure if we looked into it we’d find Tony eats shit.

        2. I just hope Biden is reasonably incompetent and stays in power for 4 years, checked by a Republican Senate. And Harris gets soundly thrashed in 2024 by a standard-issue non-Trumpian, non-neocon Republican, if there are any left.

          1. You have such faith in the system.
            Why?

            1. This is a sincere question, by the way.
              Why do you think everything will work out ok, that government institutions will function with integrity?

              1. Because Republicans aren’t in charge of it for four years.

                1. Your IQ isn’t even room temp if you trust politicians for anything, though I suspect you’re lying again as it seems you just can’t stop.

                  1. Tony isn’t just a liar, he’s mentally incapable of recognizing truth from lies.

  34. I’m done here schmucks. Survive this we will or not but take my words to heart.

  35. hey thanks for sharing valuable information to us,
    indian matka

  36. Somebody get Sullum out of here. He’s gone completely off the rails.

    1. 24 articles on one topic in one month, means he’s getting a brown envelope. Not even a fanatic would have that sort of output.

      1. a conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theory writer… seems appropriate…

      2. Wow that’s a lot. He must be sucking dick for coke again.

  37. So Reason’s ‘woke’ articles are trashing on Trump, Cruz and wait where’s (Rand Paul?). The most Libertarian candidates in the mix…

    Ya; sure. That’s how to get the concept rolling – smear your own?

    1. I don’t think anyone would fairly call Cruz a “libertarian”.

      1. the people around here making claims about how libertarian candidates are tend to have no idea what the word libertarian means.

        1. Most are smart enough to know you’re not a libertarian. And when Reason posted something b years ago about Cruz being a libertarian, it was roundly mocked for being wrong.

  38. So Reason’s I don’t think anyone would fairly call Cruz a “libertarian”
    new year wishes in bengali

    1. Why? I’m a bit confused about this Cruz isn’t libertarian enough to count. What has Cruz pushed for that was Anti-Libertarian?

  39. Correct; you’re whining that Trump doesn’t deserve legal representation because you know it’ll expose the fraud and corruption that your Marxist Cult depends on to survive.

    Of course, you dress it up as a “Drumpf Hitler Badman” straw man because you’re a lying, narcissistic sociopath piece of shit. ntaugcnet

  40. Sullum is projecting his own lack of principles.

    Fighting against fraud seems to be a pretty grounded and principled position. Whereas Sullum and the other ass eaters would just gloss over crimes, dishonesty, and thievery because, hey, at least it makes the mean tweets stop.

    Sullum sold out his principles just because of some mean tweets.

    1. I’m getting more and more convinced that the Reason stay never had principles to begin with. They have always been just less successful versions of the prior at CNN and NYT.

  41. Democratic eagerness to elect an old, corrupt, cognitive impaired white guy shows a “Complete Lack of Principles”
    A sitting US President investigating a political rival for President using the Government Agencies shows a “Complete Lack of Principles”
    Democrats trying to remove the legal sitting President with a known false dossier shows a shows a “Complete Lack of Principles”.
    In other words, where screwed, I guess I would rather be screwed by the Republicans than the Democrats.

    1. Sullum doesn’t care about any of that. Trump’s orange ‘do has offended him beyond belief, and he wants to be invited again to the cocktail parties of the nomenklatura.

  42. Who wouldn’t want to be in the front of the line to fight the legal battles for a man who attacks your wife’s looks and links your dad to the jfk assignation?

    1. Who would be a running mate to a racist rapist?

      1. Kamala Harris?

  43. Alternative headline: “Jacob Sullum defends massive election fraud because he wants the country to be run by Marxists.”

    That headline is actually closer to the truth than the drivel on this article.

    1. At least until the Marxists write some mean Tweets.

  44. Ted Cruz’s Eagerness to Fight Trump’s Legal Battles Epitomizes the GOP’s Complete Lack of Principles

    unreason’s eagerness to fight the Party of slavery’s legal battles epitomizes the Commie propagandist’s complete lack of principles.

  45. This should be a fun day full of Republican state legislatures sending their choices for Trump Electors to vote AND courts around the USA chiming in.

    1. ^ This one is going to age real well in a few hours.

      Maybe on the level of that “Red Wave” you predicted, and the trump landslide.

      Looking forward to watching you get even more broken.

      1. Democrats not following the Constitution should upset Americans and it does.

        Keep thinking Democrat Election Fraud 2020 will work.

        Poor unreason. They think Biden will be President.

        FYI: Texas State Legislature is submitting declaration to secede from the Union.

        1. Texas lawmaker to file bill calling for vote on secession from US

          I mean of course joined a Union of states where they could never challenge that other states are not following the Constitution.

        2. ^ completely, utterly broken…didnt take long

          and no, the childish threats of “we’ll just secede / wage war / stage a coup if our loser candidate loses” are not something to be proud of, they are signs of a childlike mentality that “ITS NOT FAIR!! MY FEELZ!! YOU CHEATED!!”

          Take the L you earned, fucking loser.

          Looking forward to where you place those goalposts when the EC votes prez dementia in and we watch the fat fuck get carted out of the WH….so broken

          1. Looking forward to your meltdown when Trump starts his second term.

  46. wow….. this one really triggered the orange worshiping butt monkeys.

    1. Remember when Trump kicking Hillarys ass triggered unreason staffers for 4 years?

      That is still funny.

      Trump’s second term as President cannot come soon enough on Jan 20, 2021.

      1. the fat lady is singing right now, and you should really prepare yourself to deal with reality.

        1. Promise to kill yourself when Trump starts his second term? Please?

    2. [WE] mob ostracism attempt – Exhibit #1

    3. It’s triggered people like you far more than it has Trump’s fans (at least on Reason’s comment section).

    4. Do us a favor and kill yourself when Trump is reinaugurated.

  47. And Kamala Harris accepted a BP position alongside a man she accused of being a long-time racist. She laughed it off as ‘just politics’.

    That that is how she does politics didn’t seem to bother you.

    1. And she said she believed the women who accused him of sexual assault.

  48. Poor unreason Commie hacks.

    They are still hoping Republicans cave to Democrat threats of violence if Biden doesn’t win.

  49. Why is this cuck sullum still here?

    1. Expect a LOT more pro-pedophilia propaganda once Trump is out in a few more weeks.

  50. “was based on the premise that Pennsylvania legislators, who according to Paxton have “exclusive and plenary authority” to decide how presidential electors are selected, did not have the authority to loosen restrictions on voting by mail”

    That’s a straight up lie. The suit was because the election rules were NOT changed by the legislature but by executive fiat. Reason has lost all reason.

    1. Reason hasn’t had any reason for a while now.

  51. “Ted Cruz’s Eagerness to Fight Trump’s Legal Battles Epitomizes the GOP’s Complete Lack of Principles”

    No. But Jacob Sullum’s Eagerness to Demonize Trump and the GOP Epitomizes Reason’s Complete Lack of Principles.

  52. Right now in the electoral college voting Trump is winning 35 to 27.

    Stop the voting! Stop the counting! How is it possible Trump could be winning now at the beginning and still lose! Fraud!

    Right, Trumpists?

    1. Wait…Arkansas just made it 41 to 27. Those are good, keep them. Georgia coming up next. Stop the voting!

      1. Will you do us a favor and kill yourself when Trump starts his second term?

    2. The statistical anomaly is that some updates with hundreds of thousands of votes were >99% for Biden.

      Are you simply too ignorant to understand the statistical improbability or are you deliberately misrepresenting the facts?

      1. Ok, ok…electoral college just UPDATED with 7 votes from Connecticut. It’s now 59 to 57…but it’s Biden!!!

        Wha? And all 7 went to Biden? Fraud!!!

      2. I noticed the statistical anomaly that despite being chosen by millions fewer voters, Trump got to be president anyway.

        Oh well after four years of death and humiliation, we corrected it.

        1. The electoral college is a legal body empowered by the constitution. It is not a statistical anomaly. Our Presidents are elected not by popular vote, but by electoral votes. It has happened four other times our history.
          John Quincy Adams (1824)
          “This is the first of two occasions when the man ultimately elected president first lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote.”
          Rutherford B. Hayes (1876)
          “Similar to 1824, the election of 1876 wasn’t decided by the voters, but by Congress. This time, though, the Constitution didn’t have an answer to the electoral crisis at hand.”
          Benjamin Harrison (1888)
          “When the nasty race was finally over, Cleveland and the Democrats took the entire South while Republican Harrison won the North and West, including Cleveland’s home state of Indiana by a slim margin. By sweeping the South, Cleveland won the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes, but he still lost the electoral vote 233 to 168.”
          George W. Bush (2000)
          “The Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore, but Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately voted 5 to 4 to reverse the Florida court’s decision and halt the recount. With Florida in hand, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, while Gore ended up getting 500,000 more votes in the popular vote.”

          Instead of spouting trolling nonsense, try to educate yourself on our history and Constitution. You might be able to make an intelligent, cognitive, sensible post that added to the conversation.
          Or you could just keep trolling, which is what I guess ever ignorant commentator does.

          1. It continues to baffle me that when I explain why the electoral college is a terrible, pointless institution that should be abolished, people respond with a history lesson.

            The 3/5ths compromise happened in history too. I say we get rid of ALL the sops to slave states like the electoral college.

        2. Only 538 people actually vote for President, you illiterate fuckhole.

  53. Fuck You Jacob.

    1. With a rusty running chainsaw.

  54. a president who stands for nothing but his own personal interests

    Not personal interests! Fuck you Adam Smith.

  55. The other alternative to the reason Senator Cruz was willing to take the case is he like the other over 100 Republicans looked at the evidence which I am sure the author of this article has never done. There were abnormalities and irregularities in the election that can’t just be brushed aside. President Trump did great in every county, doing even better then he did in 2016 except the Democrat counties Joe Biden needed to win. I find it hard to accept that Joe Biden created enough excitement on his third attempt to become President that he broke records with the number of votes he recieved or his running partner Harris who was soundly rejected early in the primaries help him.
    If investigations continue over the next year and proof is found that Biden did not win legally what will the reaction be? How would our country handle it?

  56. So how does the court explain how it is rectified when other states and peoples are harmed by one states rogue departure from its own laws in selecting the president?

    It doesn’t of course. It just says it doesn’t have a “cognizable interest”.

    Okay, so then a fundamental undermining of our Constitution by one states is just allowed to be?

    1. No, because the Constitution leaves it to the states for the most part to determine election procedures. No one is undermining the Constitution. The original 13 colonies/states just wanted to retain some rights before joining together. (Think of the EU–France, Germany, etc.) Lucky us, we can modify our Constitution, as it has been done many times already. This is one of those ‘rights’ left to the states not enumerated by the Constitution belonging to the federal government alone. I agree 50 states makes it a real mess however.

  57. 1. It is not immoral or ‘soulless’ to defend a position in court, even if it is contrary to your belief or knowledge.
    2. The writer is confusing legal political moves with morality. Don’t we all.
    3. The bottom line is the Court was essentially declaring that Texas had no standing..no more or less, and therefore Cruz never even had to go to Court to argue the matter, whether he thought it a great idea or not. Personally, I would have loved to hear his arguments. He is a superb litigator. The best arguments often come from defending the supposedly ‘wrong’ side. Americans are too worried or angry about hearing what they don’t want to hear. If I may quote the soon- to-be ex-President–“so sad”.

  58. “committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully” – so who are you referring to? That describes 99.9% of the “people” in D.

    Sullum is aghast at the disregard for the Constitution, but has no qualms about the massive fraud engaged in by anti-Trump forces, or the other 24/7 disregard for the Constitution engaged in by government criminals for decades, actually centuries. Probably the worst violations started with Lincoln, who should have been assassinated before he could do the irreparable damage to liberty that is his lasting legacy.

  59. I see a lot of blathering and name calling in the comments but little attention paid to the issue at hand – Is Trump right? Was the election stolen? Those are the questions that need to answered honestly. Had the situation been reversed and Biden the victim of a coordinated effort to undermine his campaign, black out damning news about his opponent, and change votes and/or stuff ballot boxes, the left would be screaming bloody murder – and rightfully so. Trump is watching someone steal his car and drive away in it while the police do nothing because they don’t like him personally. That is a farce and a rape of the rule of law.

    1. We did scream bloody murder when Trump committed treason during the last election, but his party swept it under the rug.

      We’re screaming bloody murder again now that he’s committing even more treason.

      Presumably he’ll just go away eventually. But I hope not, because I have “Trump dragged crying out of the west wing by secret service” on my Christmas list.

      1. And we’re screaming that Grandpa Puddin’ stole an election and we do not intend to shut up about it.

        His Drooling Fraudulency is not my President but, hopefully, he will be a COVID statistic soon.

      2. Committed treason? What planet are you living on? Or just spout whatever bullshit you think will validate your obvious hatred for Trump and the tens of millions of your fellow citizens who support him?
        To be fair, I’m sure those millions justifiably feel the same way about you.

  60. The headline is so true, which is one of the reasons people voted for Trump in the first place. Also, don’t confuse the actions of a political party’s elites with the party or with its grassroots.

Comments are closed.