Never said they did. I said instead how courts rule is part of law. That’s because a ruling by one court can be a precedent used by other courts.

Those laws will not be changed in a peaceful way unless they can be used against the people who are currently deriving enormous electoral benefit from them.

Maybe those laws will be changed peacefully or maybe not. The future is like that.

If the courts don’t agree that it contradicted the Constitution, then as far as the legal system is concerned it didn’t. The legal system does not dispense truth or justice, it dispenses law, and how courts rule is part of law.

Courts don’t create law in our system. When they create law or issue rulings outside the law they are replacing rule of law with rule of man (specifically rules imposed by the high priest class of judges).

The left used lawfare to unconstitutionally alter election processes in key states in 2020. The result was in contradiction with the highest law of the land, and the fact courts were complicit doesn’t make it constitutional.

If the courts don’t agree that it contradicted the Constitution, then as far as the legal system is concerned it didn’t. The legal system does not dispense truth or justice, it dispenses law, and how courts rule is part of law.

If the courts get to the wrong answer and won’t change it, the solution has to be found outside the legal system…

And you may not like it that a prosecutor in one Texas county can empanel grand juries until he gets the indictments he wants, and derail Republican political careers while the issues very slowly work through the courts at enormous expense, but that simply is not illegal. Unjust, unfair, wrong, yes, but perfectly legal.

Those laws will not be changed in a peaceful way unless they can be used against the people who are currently deriving enormous electoral benefit from them.

Who will make them look ridiculous, and to whom? What mass media organization is going to present the narrative that makes Dems look ridiculous? What social media is going to allow its users to spread a narrative that makes Dems look ridiculous? And the half of the country that doesn’t vote ballots for itself, will they be paying attention and even if so will it matter, since their ballots are voted for them by the Dems?

On the other hand, if the Trump loses the J6 case, it sets a precedent that (i) an elected official; (ii) violates the fraud statutes; (iii) by influencing the operation of government based on information that the elected official knows to be false. Democrats will look ridiculous trying to argue that those elements are not met with respect to more than a few of their members.

The name doesn’t mean it’s legal. That’s a very superficial analysis.

It can potentially be legal, illegal or quasi-legal.

The left used lawfare to unconstitutionally alter election processes in key states in 2020. The result was in contradiction with the highest law of the land, and the fact courts were complicit doesn’t make it constitutional.

Jack Smith’s latest indictments of Trump could just as easily be used against Biden, or Blinken, or Garland, or Jack Smith himself. He’s using novel legal theories that he probably realizes is false, and simply amounts to “we have the power and we can try you!”.

Lawfare isn’t natural for the right, because the right is the side that upholds actual rule of law. If Trump wins in 2024 and turns the tables using the approach Biden is using against him, 1/2 the GOP would oppose it.

She’s been coming around for awhile.

It might even trace back to the interview she did when promoting her book claiming executions of gays was common. Only to find out during the interview she didn’t understand the term that was at the core of her claim. Her response wasn’t the usual lie and deflect of the left.

Republicans don’t have to control these in order to successfully practice lawfare. In Texas, Travis County (where Austin is) indicts Republicans. Sarah Palin was driven out of office and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending complaints largely brought by a self-appointed watchdog (who was probably not acting alone).

All Republicans need is a venue from which to operate where they are dominant, and of course the will. Democrats don’t control Texas but they control Travis County and they can and do indict governors, senators, district attorneys, etc.