The DNC has literally stated, in a court of law, that they believe they are under no obligation to respect the will of the registered democrat voters who vote in their primaries, let alone the will of the American people.
Let’s back up for a minute and talk about how Debbie Wasserman-Schultz talked about the DNC, back during the primaries, before there was a lawsuit. She said, ‘[Super] delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.’
Um, what? I couldn’t hear you over the deafening fascism that came out of your mouth!
So, one DNC chair admitted the DNC has superdelegates to prevent grassroots populist movements (also known as democracy) from taking root in the party, and. But she got fired surely, the DNC will at least follow its own charter, and be otherwise impartial? I mean, maybe the superdelegates aren’t impartial and democratic, but the DNC itself will be?
Sorry, if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. And the DNC’s lawyer has affirmed, in a court of law, that the DNC feels that it is under no obligation to uphold the impartiality clause in its own charter!
I am not sure I can state this strongly enough. So let me try to rephrase it, to make sure this sinks in:
The DNC has stated in a court of law that it can choose its nominations without ANY concern for what voters want, period, full stop, and can give an advantage to one primary candidate over another, _even though this totally contradicts its own charter_.
In fact, the lawyer claimed that ‘We [the DNC] could have voluntarily decided that, “Look, we’re going to go into like they used [to] and smoke cigars [why?] and pick the candidate that way.”‘
I want to hammer this point home, because it’s something that is easy to downplay. The DNC charter states that the DNC must be a fair and even-handed (that is, impartial) organization, when it comes to the various people in democratic primaries. But they have now claimed in federal court that they are under ZERO obligation to be fair or impartial, and that they could just ignore their charter and do whatever the hell the want, and voters have no recourse, legally, because their charter is meaningless.
You think that’s bad? The DNC went on to claim that defining fairness and evenhandedness is not something which a federal court has the authority to do. They actually said that even if their charter were somehow legally enforceable, that the United States judiciary has no right to interpret what their charter means.
If you think I’m joking, read what their lawyer told a federal judge:
‘That’s for the party to decide. We’re not going to get into that. Here, you have something inchoate, your Honor, which is this purported, this claim that the party acted without evenhandedness and impartiality. That – even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the Court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs.
The party could have favored a candidate…. Even if it were true, that’s the business of the party, and it’s not justiciable [emphasis mine].’
How does one even respond to this blatant disregard for:
- Democracy. Because fuck the will of the voters, amiright?
- Contracts. Because a charter is a meaningless statement and if you believe that the DNC is somehow bound by its charter, you’re clearly an idiot.
- The United States judicial system. Because even if the DNC contract is somehow supposed to mean something, that meaning is clearly not something that can be interpreted by our federal courts!
We’ve known for a long time that Democratic elites such as the Clintons have viewed themselves as above the law. When Comey chose to avoid prosecuting Clinton for her handling of classified information (which would have landed anyone else in jail without any question, but which Comey deflected by saying she might have been too stupid to have intended to mishandle classified information), we knew that the United States does not, in practice, apply its laws equally to all citizens. But now, the DNC has openly stated that the DNC believes itself to be above the law, and even above any moral obligation to follow its own promises to its members.
This is an organization which would make the Corleone family look stellar by comparison. Even they understood loyalty and honoring a code. But the DNC has now stated it has no code except self-interest.
Imagine if you will an analogous situation. Say that I sign a contract with a school, that I will build a football field in the next three months, in exchange for $20,000. Say that after three months, there is no field. Can you imagine what would happen if I argued in a court of law that
- I am under no obligation to fulfill the contract, because it was just a piece of paper, and screw that dumb school, right?
- Even if I am under obligation to fulfill the contract, the United States judicial system has no authority to decide whether a football field has actually been built, because hey, screw the guv’mint!
I’d be ruled against in approximately two seconds flat, and also hit with contempt of court, and rightfully so! But the DNC is actually making this as a serious argument.
The DNC may be the greatest threat, not only to American democracy, but to American government (except perhaps the Deep State). They have expressed contempt for democracy, for contracts, and for our judicial system. Trump may be bad, but the DNC is an existential threat to us all.