Ugly Business

The manner in which the aftermath of this election is unfolding is a case study is the importance of the rule of (state) law and the manner in which some blue states or cities have been cavalier about enforcing it. At the very least, circumstantial evidence indicates that at the very least, there are questionable results, if not, outright voter fraud. But circumstantial evidence isn't enough to over turn an election result—hard evidence is necessary and hard evidence of voter fraud is VERY difficult to obtain, particularly because the media is looking the other way (no investigation of the late results that Benefit their chosen candidate) for any allegation of foul play and even the courts tend to avoid interfering. The Democrats know that and now have a commading position.

Andrew McCarthy comments on the situation in PA but it applies to all states in play and some that have been "decided:"

The narrative that the Supreme Court has already authorized voting that does not comply with state election laws is just part one in a two-step scheme to enable post-election cheating: First, infiltrate as many illegal ballots as possible into the state systems; second, keep chanting that “every vote counts” and demagogue anyone who says otherwise — i.e., anyone who insists that state statutory law be followed — as “suppressing” votes, no doubt motivated by racism.

The Orwellian narrative is already being written: To call for the Constitution to be enforced is to “steal” the election.

Yesterday, I noted that there have been many "mistakes" and situations that have occurred during the vote and ballot processing that have all favored Joe Biden, and that on their merits simply aren't credible.

McCarthy continues:

... by “every vote counts,” the Left means each vote must be tallied regardless of whether the voter is lawfully qualified to vote, and regardless of whether the vote was cast within the properly enacted rules of the election. This is why Democrats fight tooth-and-nail against every proposal to require voter identification, to match signatures, to outlaw vote “harvesting,” etc. Just as the Left takes umbrage at the term “illegal alien” on the nonsensical ground that “no person is illegal” (as if there were not patent differences between legal immigration status and human dignity), they would have you accept, on a “social justice” rationale, that there can be no illegal votes in a “true democracy.”

... For Democrats, the task of courts is not to follow state law but to tweak it as necessary to enable voting outside the state legislature’s rules. And of course, the only things progressives may prefer to pliant courts is unelected, “expert,” “apolitical” bureaucracies — such as election boards dominated by Democrats, which presume to alter state law under the guise of administering it.

The GOP has every right to use the courts also, if there is substantial evidence that a state's election law was not followed. And that evidence does exist in MI, AZ, NV, PA, NC, GA, WS, and a few other states. Every state defines the criteria of an acceptable ballot. No state should accept a ballot that was submitted by a dead person or by someone who is NOT a U.S. citizen. No state should ratify a result in which ballots were manufactured, where votes outnumber voters registered, where a citizen is paid directly for his ballot, and where claims of large blocks of votes that are 100% for one party have been made. But all of those things have happened. 

Questioning the results of a democratic election is an ugly business. But doing things that lead to a dishonest result are even uglier. To stop the latter, the former must occur. The courts must become involved.

There is no dignity in any of this—including the ethically and legally questionable voting practices in cities like Philadephia, Atlanta, Detroit and others. But if the last four years have taught us anything, it's that the Democratic party is not very big on ethics and wants to bend the law to fit their needs.