Who is civically illiterate?
Who is detached from reality?
Who is more dependent in the federal government and our tax dollars?
Who offers greater shelter to ideals hostile to democracy?
That the Right can't and won't answer these questions, just dance around them, speaks loud.
We need to make voting *harder*. Just not for us.
We need to restrict early voting. Just not in states our guy won.
There was *fraud*. Just not in states our guy won. And nevermind that most fraud we catch comes from our voters.
The only group deserving of suffrage are the *contributors*, they argue. The *tax base*. The *stakeholders*.
Ask about white people over 65. Crickets.
If voters can be disenfranchised for being "takers", why shouldn't Mississippi be stripped of its electoral votes?
Crickets.
It may be a right, they say, but it should be subject to sensible restrictions aimed at limiting its use for the good of the Republic, up to and including wholesale disenfranchisement.
Okay. So your opposition to gun control is hypocrisy, or?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Common sense can get you through a lot of this stuff. Seriously.
If electors can be appointed because the state party simply decides to send them, and if certification is unnecessary in the face of the whims of the VP playing master of ceremonies, what does that mean?
Common sense can get you through a lot of the psycho litigation, too.
If thousands of votes can be dumped and states can be switched on briefs with no credible evidence, and grammar, spelling, and argumentation so bad an 8th grader would be ashamed, what would that mean?
If you wish it were, check yourself for your authoritarian instincts.
"I want the government to punish attorneys who challenge it via its own courts and procedures" is a take so gross, in fact, that the understandable indignation at the bullshit some lawyers get up to doesn't really excuse it.
Our profession is regulated civilly by people who know our profession, how it works, and how it needs to work.
Is it regulated fairly or aggressively enough? Certainly not. I'd rather err towards laissez-faire than criminalize advocacy based on obsequious devotion to the state.