" Speaking from the East Room of the White House shortly after 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday, [Trump] confusingly proclaimed he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to stop ‘all voting.’" — Politico, 11/4/20

- - -

Well, we knew this could happen. While an election should just be about counting votes and declaring the person who got the most votes the winner, it seems we are headed for a number of states engaging in a Florida-in-2000 scenario, rife with counting errors, bad faith, and lawsuits. Some people are disturbed by this, but I am trying to find the silver lining. Our institutions are still strong, and they are set up to handle this. So let’s put our faith in the process and have the illegitimate Supreme Court decide what’s fair.

The Supreme Court understands democracy. After all, five of them were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote. In the latest hearings, the confirmed candidate couldn’t even name the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Far from clouding their decisions, this robust desecration of democracy has imbued them with a profound and deep respect for our system of injustice. While some would disagree with the Supreme Court’s definition of democracy in Bush v. Gore as “the thing I personally want,” I — along with most people who own large machine guns — actually think that definition is correct.

Bush v. Gore isn’t the only example of the Supreme Court undermining the will of the people for their own good. In decision after decision, the majority of Supreme Court justices have ruled how dangerous it is to pay attention to the majority of people. In matters of voting, it is best to let the minority decide what’s best, the majority said.

And me, well, I think the majority is right when they say that the majority is wrong. That’s why our democracy needs to be tempered by extra safeguards to ensure that the majority never gets too much power. That’s what the majority of Supreme Court justices believe, and, as always, I believe in listening to the majority when they are in the minority.

Now it’s clear why we need to have faith in the process. Because it makes no rational sense.

So what’s next? It’s fairly simple. A team of corporate lawyers, their expressions vacant, their eyes devoid of irises, their every action and utterance an expression of their inner soul-death, will pursue a byzantine network of inane and incomprehensible lawsuits aimed at uncovering whatever version of the truth they are paid to pretend exists. The presence of these disgusting vermin who cast no shadow is an indictment not just of our legal education system, not just the legal profession, not just society writ large, but indeed an indictment of God himself, who engendered these hell beasts with His seed and set them loose on our nation with the reckless confidence of a rabid dog with a gun strapped to its back.

These venal bruisers, these feckless maniacs, these gluttonous graverobbers are indeed the best people to litigate the fate of our democracy. Because without them, who would be arguing on behalf of Trump? Who would be arguing on behalf of Exxon, BP, Amazon, war profiteers, and the arms industry? People with functioning moral consciences? And then what would happen? I’m afraid democracy would gain a stronger foothold, and, like a weed, it would overtake this nation with its unstoppable growth.

With the help of these corporate lawyers, and with the help of these illegitimate Supreme Court justices, we will discover the meaning of democracy. And, like all great stories, we will realize that we knew the meaning all along. Democracy is what most people don’t want.