From "Harvard's 'Lawfare' Programs Are an Omen of Elections Decided Not at Polls -- But in Court" (Real Clear Politics).
December 4, 2021
"Two programs at Harvard Law show close ties between the school, the Democratic Party, and liberal activist groups with an interest in fighting elections through the judicial system."
"Reporting the launch of the Election Law Clinic in April, Harvard Law Today said participating students will get course credit for working on political campaigns, as well as 'hands-on litigation and advocacy work across a range of election law areas, with an initial focus on redistricting and voter suppression cases. Clinic offerings include federal and state litigation projects, as well as some advocacy opportunities.'... Glenn Reynolds, the libertarian University of Tennessee law professor known for his Instapundit blog, tells RealClearInvestigations that if institutions such as Harvard start turning out significantly more students with expertise in election law, those lawyers will create a demand for their expertise and election litigation.
'That's just how the law works,' he says.
The backgrounds of those staffing the putatively nonpartisan Election Law Clinic show a distinct progressive tilt...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
As a famous Democrat once said:
Elections have consequences, that's WHY we have to fight them in court!
Now who would have thunk?
I tried to read a fairly recent article in the Harvard Law Review about dividing Washington DC into a large number of states and admitting them to the United States. The student author was serious and the article proved it was all legal.
It’s also where the money is…or where it will end up…
We used to speak openly about the collapse of society when there’s more people in the wagon rather than pulling the wagon. It still holds true but we’re going to have to live through the lab experiment to prove it to the newcomers…
Shakespeare was right, wasn’t he?
The problem was this:
Too many Black males did not vote for Hillary Clinton.
-----
The remedy is this:
Ballots are mailed to all Black males ten weeks before the election. During those ten weeks, each Black male is visited and harassed repeatedly by Democrat activists until he fills out his ballot in front of an activist. Then the activist takes the ballot from the Black male.
If the Black male has filled in his ballot "correctly", then the activist delivers it to the voting facility.
If the Black male has filled in his ballot "incorrectly", then the activist discards it into the trash.
This is the voting system that the Harvard is working to establish.
Ok, so why doesn't Glenn get some right wing lawyers together and start a competing organization? I'd happily throw a couple bucks their way if I thought that they were actually going to churn out young conservative lawyers to fight this crap.
First principle of election law, is that it must always be interpreted in a way that serves the needs of The Party.
Should signatures be verified? Only in those cases where it can be used to protect a member of The Party, such as recall petitions in California, or if a politician who is not a made member of The Party tries to use signatures to get on the ballot against a made member of The Party. A good example of this is the way signature validation was used to disqualify Barack Obama's Senate opponent in the Democratic Party, as opposed to the way signature validation was. completely discarded in the case of hundreds of thousands of votes in Wisconsin which helped to defeat Trump.
Remember that the United States is, and must always be, the sole advanced western democracy which does not demand ID to vote. This is self evidently in the interest of The Party.
Basically, it's like the formula F=MA in first year college physics, the whole year is spent on the implications of that formula, it's the same with understanding the many facets in law illuminated by the central principle of The Party's interest and their cause of Just Us.
We are in the prequel to 1984, and nobody wants to be on the "wrong side of history"! You want your foot in the boot, not to be on the ground with the boot on your neck!
"hands-on litigation and advocacy work across a range of election law areas, with an initial focus on redistricting and voter suppression cases [including other means & methods of cheating that can't be easily traced]"
So, having become a partisan organization, Harvard will sacrifice its tax-exempt status, right?
Oh, yes, this is not new.
I took some time off from university to take some required courses (a literature class, a government class) in Junior college, where tuition is cheaper.
This was 1977, and the government teacher said she gave us credit for working her friend’s county office campaign (Democrat, of course). I remember clearly that she gave times you could work, and where to go and who to contact to work on this campaign. And she said she’d give credit for anyone who worked for her opponent, as well - but didn’t give any info on how to get in contact or with whom.
I chose the third option and stayed in class and took a test. It left a bad taste for Democrats that has lived on these past decades.
"Ok, so why doesn't Glenn get some right wing lawyers together and start a competing organization? I'd happily throw a couple bucks their way if I thought that they were actually going to churn out young conservative lawyers to fight this crap."
Because that would be like the old containment theory, which can't work in the long run.
Entirely predictable. Given the Democrats’ success in using legal manipulation (and the voter fraud that it enabled) we can expect an onslaught of Lawfare to win again in 2024. I would love to be inside the rooms at Harvard when they discuss how mail in voting without signature requirements enables fraud. Do they simply ignore the elephant in the room? Are they openly supporting voter fraud? We need full transparency on this. Could Harvard be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit voter fraud?
That’s the long con, all Democrat-supporting organizations are officially “non-partisan” and generously funded with both public and private money. All pro-American pro-freedom organizations are targeted like the Boy Scouts, sports leagues and Big Tech, so that progressives can take them over and destroy their primary mission and redirect the energy into politics. Those they can’t destroy they label and marginalize like the FedSoc, NRA and organized (faith based) religion. So whenever I hear “non-partisan” I understand rabid progressives run it and run it for the sole reason of electing Democrats.
We have a wonderful diverse country that one party wishes would be monolithically progressive and dammit we just won’t obey! So send in the lawyer hoard!
"Harvard's 'Lawfare' Programs Are an Omen of Elections Decided Not at Polls -- But in Court"
It's so depressing.
My comment above is a compliment to Tim of V’s thesis and an extension of his argument.
@Big Mike:
Shakespeare may have been right about a lot of things, but 'tis grievous error to conjure in an author's mind the endorsement of everything any of his characters says (especially a character named Dick, the Butcher).
Whose side was Shakespeare on in Julius Caesar: Brutus or Mark Anthony.
Another trend we are seeing is State and local election officials ignoring various vote integrity laws in order to help Dems, fighting a delaying action till courts declare the cases mout (until next election when its done to an even greater extent.)
Or "sue and settle" cons by non-partian democratic lawyers, who sue Democratic officials and the parties settle out of court the way Dems need to win.
These are "cheat clinics".
The only way lefties can win.
Meanwhile, over at AceofSpades, it seems Alan Sokal has struck again, this time getting a leftnoid "academic" publication to post a bogus article about how "right wing" money is having a significant effect in pushing colleges to the right."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hequ.12360
"Donor money and the academy: Perceptions of undue donor pressure in political science, economics, and philosophy."
The article has since been retracted: "The retraction is agreed because data in the article has been identified as fabricated and the authors have not disclosed their true identities."
Apparently the piece was "too good to check." The purported authors are Sage Owens and Kal Avers-Lynde III. Sound out their initials and see what you wind up with.
Sokal, if you don't remember, perpetrated another such hoax by penning an article on the "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",published in the journal's spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct.
So he's struck again. And once again. he's shown that the pomos are flakes, flakes all the way down.
Heh
It's a "how to steal elections" clinic.
One Party is ideologically driven and it is not the Republicans.
The reason campus towns get so hysterical when Republicans win is because they know they are on the Democrat's payroll.
Whose side was Shakespeare on in Julius Caesar: Brutus or Mark Anthony.
He liked Cleopatra.
Democratic elite are arrogant and authoritarian.
Lucien,
Quite right. When someone says "Shakespeare said" this or that (e.g., the Dick the Butcher quote we're talking about, or Hamlet's "There's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"), I generally respond that "Shakespeare" also said "I have given suck, and know how tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me" (that's Lady Macbeth, for any who don't know).
These are all dramatic characters. There is something to Jorge Luis Borges' point (in his short essay titled, in translation, "From Someone to No One") that Shakespeare threw all of himself into drama, that the "real" Shakespeare in a serious sense doesn't exist at all. But there's no point in attributing to the playwright things that are said in dramatic contexts.
State government backwater public school employee with tenure posing as a Libertarian, Glenn Reynolds, cries like a bitch about the successful programs at an elite private university where he's not qualified enough to work at. Sounds like Any Rand applying for Medicare because she gave herself cancer from smoking like a chimney.
Democracy is cannibalized at the Twilight fringe.
Howard: "State government backwater public school employee with tenure posing as a Libertarian, Glenn Reynolds,...."
Its wise of you to avoid discussing any subjects on the facts and merit and simpky go straight to sad ad hominem, particularly after you crashed and burned so spectacularly yesterday when you pretended to understand what Jordan Peterson has written followed by your cutting and pasting of someone else's gibberish.
Staying in your lane is always a smart move on your part.
I guess the lawfare is the backup plan, for those rare instances when an insufficient number of fake ballots have been manufactured?\
>> Ballots are mailed to all Black males ten weeks before the election. During those ten weeks, each Black male is visited and harassed repeatedly by Democrat activists until he fills out his ballot in front of an activist. Then the activist takes the ballot from the Black male.
This is not how it works, even putting aside the curious specificity to black males. There is no need to visit actual voters.
1. Ballots are mailed to EVERYBODY.
2. Hold the election
3. Get the names of those who did not vote. Turn in enough ballots (marked about 75/25 for D) in those names, claiming they were "mailed in".
4. Get these ballots intermingled with real ballots as soon as possible, so there is no chance of identifying them separately.
For icing on the cake, you can do a few "recounts" to PROVE the accuracy of the result.
If you wanted to stop this, you would require that all mail in ballots be received the day before the election. They would be counted FIRST, before any other votes, and reported on separately and kept physically separate. The totals would be reported as soon as the polls close.
But that would make fraud harder, which is not the goal.
The goal is to make sure one side wins, and then uses their power to make it even easier to win the next time.
Have given a fair amount of money to Harvard over the years (mostly to the college), because that's how I got from being a peon on the South Side of Chicago to where I am today, with only modest loans that I've long since paid off. I doubt that they've figured out why, but I've cut them off completely from donations the last few years.
Still giving generously to my Jesuit high school in Chicago, which was also part of the conveyer belt and I hope hasn't been completely corrupted.
--gpm
we have seen how winning elections is so much easier if first you get judges in place to deny standing to the other party complainants
how does Harvard Lawfare ensure standing for D plaintiffs?
...and Harvard also had close ties to Epstein...
Funny how that works.
Howard: "State government backwater public school employee with tenure posing as a Libertarian, Glenn Reynolds,...."
****************
Funny, innit , how uber-statist Howard sneers at state government employee Glenn Reynolds, Yale Law School JD, 1985.
"His work has appeared in a wide variety of publications, including the Columbia Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, the William and Mary Law Review, the Southern California Law Review, the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, The Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Law and Policy in International Business, Jurimetrics, the Journal of Space Law, and the High Technology Law Journal. Professor Reynolds has also written in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Road & Track, Urb, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as other popular publications."
But...now that you've put credentialism on the table, Howard.......WATCHOOO GOT?
Face it, Howard, you're not worthy of wiping Glenn's ass...
Post a Comment