When Democrats cannot win, they want to change the rules … or ignore them

Here we go again.  When democracy is not working for the left, they try to change the rules to gain and maintain power.  Currently, we are a very divided nation on many of the issues.  That means that no matter what the government does, half the population will not like it.  But as is the tradition in America, when one side is given more power by THE PEOPLE, that side will use the levers of government to enact their agenda … the platform.  The other side will complain but comply – and look to the next election.  At least that is how it is supposed to work.  But Democrats do not comply.  They change the rules.

The Supreme Court

When Democrats held the presidency and the Senate, they nominated and confirmed a bunch of liberal Supreme Court justices.  Republicans winced, but they understood that elections have consequences.  Democrats on the left just believe they should win regardless.

As a result, Democrats – for the most part – are eager to add more liberal justices to the Supreme Court – and they are not willing to wait for a vacancy.  They want to expand the number of justices for one simple reason – so that they control the decisions.

They do not want to wait for Justice Breyer to retire – and they understand the result would be replacing one liberal justice with another.  Democrats are afraid that if Breyer does not resign before the midterm elections, Republicans might take control of the Senate.  That would make the confirmation of a hardcore progressive justice a virtual impossibility.

Even further, they are terrified that Breyer might hang on until after the 2024 presidential election – and then a vacancy might be filled by a Republican President – confirmed by a Republican Senate.  They see it as a repeat of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg situation.

Sooooo … Democrats and their mouthpieces in the press are again resurrecting the idea of expanding the size of the high Court.  Many do not even believe a 2-seat addition is sufficient to control the Court.  There are proposals for 4 to 8 new seats.

When America elected Donald Trump – and gave him a Republican Senate – they understood that he would likely have an opportunity to nominate, and the Senate confirm federal judges and Supreme Court justices.  The fact that fate gave him three opportunities is irrelevant.  Those are the rules.

The filibuster

As a secondary effort to push their leftwing agenda, many Democrats want to end the filibuster – for only one reason.  It interferes with their desire for absolute control.  They ignore the fact the American Republic is based on majority rule with minority protections.

When the nation and the Congress are so sharply divided, neither party has a mandate for major controversial changes.  Bipartisan consensus is more important than ever.  Major controversial legislation should require more than a squeaky one-vote margin.

But Democrats want to take away that minority protection in favor of absolute control.  They want to change the rules.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College was a bit of ingenuity on the part of the Founders.  It has served this nation well for 232 years.  Yes, there have been situations in which the legitimate electoral count resulted in a different outcome than the popular vote.  That is a small price to pay for all the benefits of the Electoral College.

First of all, in cases when the electoral vote is different than the popular vote, it is in a close election.  Obviously, in a sharply divided nation, there are more close votes – and neither side has a mandate.  

But the Electoral College performs two critically important functions. Without it, a handful of large states would dominate every presidential election.  And controlling every presidential election means controlling the nation.  That means autocracy.  Small states and communities would be entirely disenfranchised.

In addition, the Electoral College settles elections.  It is especially important in close or contested presidential elections.  Without it, those close elections could be disputed in court cases for months and even years beyond Inauguration Day.  It would create a constitutional crisis of enormous proportions

Democrats should love the Electoral College because it officially settled the 2020 presidential election.  Once they voted all the claims of vote fraud were null and void – whether they were legitimate or not.   There can be a lot of political rancor – and even the discovery of outcome-changing vote manipulation – BUT none of that can change the outcome because it is the vote of the Electoral College that counts.

Election laws

Speaking of elections – and despite the nonsensical contention there was no vote fraud or illegal misconduct in the 2020 presidential election – there were a lot of questionable and clearly improper activities, mostly from Democrats changing the rules.

One of the more obvious and flagrant illegal actions occurred in Pennsylvania when the election authorities changed the mail-in rules and deadlines even though the Pennsylvania state constitution clearly states only the state legislature can make such changes.  That resulted in tens of thousands of ballots being counted that were not in compliance with the law.  And even the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court ignored the state constitution and state law to allow those votes to be counted.  There can be no argument that the Biden campaign benefited from the improper rule changes and the state courts to let it stand in defiance of the rule-of-law that they so proudly proclaim to uphold.

Democrats treat elections like they do the southern border.  They favor wide open voting with minimal protections.  They falsely claim that vote fraud never exists and therefore see no need to protect against it.  It is an argument of political convenience base on a false contention.

There are proven to be hundreds of cases in which the chain-of-security with Drop-Off Boxes was not maintained.  There is circumstantial evidence of cheating.  In a couple of states, the number of ballots that floated outside the chain-of-security could have changed the outcome in those states.  But as with all vote fraud, it is almost impossible to prosecute and correct.

Because of the Pandemic, Democrats were able to expand the ways and times to vote without consideration to ballot security.  They opened up opportunities to cheat in ways that are almost impossible to prosecute.  Most of the election reform measures currently moving through 48 states are designed to eliminate the special rule changes based on the Pandemic.  None of them create an undue burden on anyone who wishes to vote – including minorities.  They are designed to restore the security and sanctity of the ballot.  Those states are not changing the rules as much as re-establishing them.

Border crossing

The United States has a legal standard for entering the country to seek asylum.  It is designed to prevent people from moving to America for nothing more than personal desire – or for criminal intentions.  Even economic hardship is NOT one of the justifiable reasons for asylum.  Democrats –with their open-borders mentality – have changed the standard.  We are literally admitting hundreds of thousands of people who are not qualified to take up residency in America under the law.  If we just applied the law – and performed proper and effective enforcement – we would not have a border crisis.

Summary

In short, those on the left – and that means much of the Democratic Party leadership – prefer to rule by dictate.  Not by the rule-of-law.  That is how authoritarians rule.  They make the rules as they go along for their own political benefit.

So, there ‘tis.