Why are democrats saying there is no constitutional remedy or really anything anyone

[onecaliberal]

Can do about a foreign government stealing the election, but in 2000 when the Supreme Court selected Bush, that was allowed. That certainly wasnt in the constitution. Why do we always roll over for these sorry excuses that hate America and only want to pillage for themselves?

[elleng]

1. Because we're a nation of laws, maybe.

POTUS indicated he was/is doing what he can do, and Congress should do the same.

[Warpy]

2. Because that's what the 0.1% wants

You do know this is a plutocracy, right?

[HassleCat]

3. Because we can't deal with it.

We would have to admit that we lost control of our election, like some primitive third world country we like to ridicule and boss around.

[jberryhill]

4. That mischaracterizes the circumstances of 2000

No, the Supreme Court did not elect Bush.

In a ridiculous decision, elevating a statutory procedural requirement above the Constitutional principles involved, the Supreme Court decided that the State of Florida was entitled to certify its vote totals by a certain deadline.

However, since our system empowers the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority of Constitutional interpretation of legal questions, that was entirely a consequence of the design of our system of government, and the authority of the Supreme Court to decide that legal question about the Florida vote count.

The case was within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide, and that is most certainly in the Constitutional definition of matters with the court stated in Article III, and the 11th and 14th Amendments.

[onecaliberal]

5. I said they Selected him. The point was it was NOT provided for in the constitution.

[jberryhill]

6. And my point is that you seem not to understand the Constitution

That lame ass ridiculous piece of demented reasoning was within their Constitutional authority. Yes, the scope of their authority is most certainly IN the Constitution.

[onecaliberal]

8. I disagree. I understand perfectly.

[jberryhill]

9. Well the Supreme Court believed differently than you did.

And their decision was a piece of shit.

But we have a system for deciding Constitutional questions, and they generally get the last word on them.

[Takket]

7. The constitution doesn't allow SCOTUS to rule

On cases brought before it? Where did you get that idea?

[TheFrenchRazor]

10. because they're part of the problem; they think small and protect their turf. nt

[loyalsister]

11. There is no affirmative constitutional right to vote, for one thing

Nor is there a constitutional requirement that campaigns cannot engage in dirty tricks.

It is not unconstitutional to lie in campaign ads. It is not unconstitutional to slander opponents. And, it is not unconstitutional to leak documents that put one candidate at a disadvantage.

Until we have some standards which may intrude on free speech, we are stuck with a system where dirty tricks are technically fair play.