Reducing the size of the police force will reduce the number of interactions between the police and the citizenry — but not necessarily between the criminals and the citizenry.

According to a story from Forbes back in February,

A new survey of crime data in 34 of America’s biggest cities found a 30% increase in homicides in 2020, a jump researchers describe as having “no modern precedent” and link tentatively to the coronavirus pandemic and racial justice protests that started over the summer.

While homicide rates calculated from this survey topped 2019’s numbers in every month of the year, the biggest increase came after the May protests, with homicides rising 37% compared to 2019 in June through August (the study notes that this increase is statistically significant even taking into consideration a typical increase in homicides over the summer months).

My time and experience as a participant in the mechanism of the criminal justice system left me with one lasting impression that is not something well enough understood by the citizenry at large.

A function of the freedoms we all enjoy as citizens of this great country is that, for the most part, the police in the United States are not empowered to arrest people in order to prevent crimes. Most exercises of police power in the United States come in the aftermath of crimes that have already been committed, and the arrest is the action that begins the process for establishing guilt and accountability for the illegal acts in the criminal justice system.

One aspect of this freedom is that it incorporates a “risk-reward” calculation in criminal activity — “Is the reward from the criminal conduct such that it is worth the risk that I might get caught and go to jail?”

There is an entire segment of the population of the United States that lives according to this calculation because for them crime is easier than work. It takes less time and is usually more financially rewarding for those who don’t want to learn skills valuable to employers. It leaves much more free time every day of every week to do what they want to do rather than what their employer requires them to do in order to earn a paycheck.

When the risk of apprehension goes down, the risk-benefit calculation weighs even more heavily in favor of criminal behavior as compared to finding a job.

“Defunding the Police” makes the “work” of those who choose crime over employment even easier and less risky. ///

Once crime gets bad enough that politicians have to act, they will swing the pendulum so far the other direction that it may get stuck there: arresting people people to prevent crimes, because the population is so fed up with crime that they will accept ANY solution to make everyday life more safe.

A Texas woman doesn't remember renting a VHS tape 22 years ago — let alone that she didn't return it — and the place she rented it from shut its doors more than a decade ago. But the unreturned tape led to her being charged with a felony.

TechFreedom, a libertarian-leaning think tank that filed a brief in the case, said the Supreme Court ruling "restores due process at the FTC." TechFreedom President Berin Szóka wrote:

The text of the Act is clear: Section 13(b) allows the agency to stop deceitful or fraudulent conduct quickly, so that the conduct is not ongoing while the agency then completes a more rigorous process for clawing back ill-gotten gains. This process ensures a balance: fraudsters' misconduct is promptly shut down, but the agency is forced to prove that its target is indeed engaged in fraud before taking money from it. Although the agency (and several Senators) have recently emphasized how important the agency's Section 13(b) authority is for obtaining consumer redress, it is only important because the agency has made it so, by convincing courts to let the agency misuse it for that purpose.

Public Knowledge said the ruling "decimates [the] FTC's ability to protect consumers through restitution" but pointed out that Congress can restore the FTC's powers by amending the law. //

As Justice [Stephen] Breyer noted in his opinion, Congress can easily fix this problem by clarifying that the FTC can seek equitable remedies along with an injunction," Petros wrote. "Given that both sides of the aisle support the agency's ability to seek restitution, it should be a priority for legislators. It's common sense for ill-gotten gains to be returned to the pockets of consumers—not kept by those that would take advantage of them."

Apple is facing two class-action lawsuits over the meaning of the words “rent” and “buy.”

In the first suit, lead plaintiff David Andino argues that Apple’s definition of the two words is deceptive since the company can terminate people’s Apple IDs and, along with them, access to content they purchased using the “buy” button. Thus, Andino is arguing that Apple allows consumers to rent content rather than purchase it outright. If he had known that his access could be cut off at any time, he says he would have not spent as much on iTunes content.

Just like Best Buy cannot come into a person’s home to repossess the movie DVD that such person purchased from it, [Apple] should not be able to remove digital content from its customers’ Purchased folders,” the suit says.

Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely. But US District Court Judge John Mendez wasn’t buying it, as first noticed by the Hollywood Reporter. He rejected a motion filed by Apple that sought to dismiss the suit. That means the suit can move forward with its claims of false advertising and unfair competition, though it could still be settled before going to trial.

Apple is also up against a second class-action suit related to terminating Apple IDs. In this one, lead plaintiff Matthew Price claims he lost $24,590.05 in iTunes, the App Store, and in-app purchases, along with $7.63 in account credit, which became inaccessible when Apple terminated his account. Price’s lawsuit was filed on Tuesday.

Price’s $25,000 worth of purchases is perhaps an extreme example of what many consumers may encounter when they buy content on digital platforms, only to find it unavailable when their accounts are suspended or terminated. At issue is whether digital content available through various platforms is truly owned by individuals if the platform owner can prevent them from accessing it in the future.

Amazon is defending itself against a similar lawsuit filed last April by people who claim the company falsely advertised that they would have unlimited access to content purchased through Prime Video. They are concerned that Amazon “secretly reserves the right to terminate the consumers’ access and use of the Video Content at any time,” the suit claims.

Quote:
Apple countered by arguing that “no reasonable consumer would believe” that content purchased through iTunes would be available on the platform indefinitely.

Amazing just how very many of us are unreasonable, isn't it?

If "no reasonable consumer would believe..." then shouldn't Apple be happy to have a jury verdict on it? Should be easy to have 12 "reasonable" jurists. //

I have friends who think I am silly to buy Bluray movies and rip them to my personal NAS that has redundancy. I just don't trust these companies to do right by me in the slightest. //

If this results in a digital version of the Doctrine of First Sale I will be dancing in the streets. This whole "you only license anything digital" thing has been a naked power grab from the start and the courts should never have gone along.

Laura Wides-Munoz
@lwmunoz
·
Apr 20, 2021
George Floyd's death sparked calls for police reform. Why hasn't Congress acted? from @sarahdwire
Whatever happened to police reform legislation?
latimes.com //

Kira
@RealKiraDavis
Hi Laura. There's this guy named @SenatorTimScott and his bill was crushed by partisan Democrats who had no interest in actually solving problems. I'm really surprised you didn't know that. //

Do Laura and her cohorts even care that Democrats — who have been blaming everybody under the sun who doesn’t vote Democrat for the lack of police reform — nixed a bill that would have at least attempted to address the problem?

Senator Tim Scott blasted the Democrats for their partisan and selfish filibuster in an epic rant on the Senate floor. Was it picked up by Journalist Laura and the reporter who wrote the article or anyone at The L.A. Times? Or anyone in progressive media?

Another rhetorical question. //

Steve Guest
@SteveGuest
Sen. Tim Scott: Senate Democrats did not reject “what is being offered” but “who is offering it.” //

Democrats wet the bed on this issue. We need to make them change the sheets or lie in their own lazy mess.

“As we saw last summer, some of the local governments are actually telling, not necessarily in Florida but throughout the country, basically telling these folks to stand down, telling police to stand down while cities burnt, while businesses were burnt, while people were being harmed,” the governor said. “That’s a dereliction of duty.”

He continued:

What our bill says, and what I’ll sign into law today, is that if you’re derelict in your duty as a local government, if you tell law enforcement to stand down, then you’re responsible for the damage that ensues. And if someone’s been harmed, or their property has been destroyed, then they can sue you for compensation.

The measure defines a riot as a violent demonstration involving three or more individuals engaging in activity that causes injury to others, damage to property, or threat of both. According to Newsmax, “the law also created a new second-degree felony called an ‘aggravated riot,’ when the riot has more than 25 participants, causes great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force.”

Fourth, Chauvin’s attorney was able to mention a couple of times on the record something that I hoped he would be able to get into evidence — that being the fact that information about expert opinions and other evidence in the case was continually being provided to him while the trial was underway, long after it was supposed to be delivered to him by the prosecution. //

He needs to take some time to show the jury that the entire process has been unfair and unethical. The prosecution has helped in this regard by using multiple prosecutors to examine witnesses. There was no need for that. The operative facts, in this case, covered a grand total of about 18-20 minutes — from Chauvin’s first contact with Floyd up through Floyd being loaded in the ambulance and being driven away. There is nothing about this case — with only 12 days of witness testimony in the prosecution’s case — that required more than one prosecutor. //

But he should criticize the government for its approach to the case and ask the jury why all these resources are necessary when the case is not very complicated. Could it be that the prosecution recognizes the weakness of their case, and they are trying to mask that by overwhelming the single solitary defense attorney battling back against them? With so many attorneys working on the case, why did materials related to witness testimony reach him so late so often? //

he needs to mock the dismissal by the prosecution’s experts of the impact of the Fentanyl in Floyd’s system. The Medical Examiner paid by the taxpayers of Hennepin County told the police that if Floyd had died alone at home, he would have ruled it an accidental overdose based on the lethal level of Fentanyl in his blood. //

The key to this point is that Dr. Tobin was never made aware by the prosecutors of the Fentanyl tablets found in the rear of the police car. The DNA testing proving they had been in Floyd’s mouth was done in February, but in the 60 days thereafter Dr. Tobin was not given that information. I would ask the jury to consider why that was held back by the prosecutors? Was it because they knew it would alter Dr. Tobin’s opinion about the mechanism of Floyd’s death? The defense asked that the patrol car be searched and that the tablets be tested — not the prosecution. If it hadn’t been for the defense, that evidence would have never been part of the case.

But the prosecution controlled what information was given to the prosecution’s experts, and on this one key piece of evidence that would impact Dr. Tobin’s opinion, the prosecutors chose to not give that information to him. Why?

The only explanation I have seen him provide — and I wasn’t able to pay full attention as the trial process got underway — was that he was unpersuaded that any other county in Minnesota would be better able to provide a trial venue fairer to Chauvin than Hennepin County. I find that rationale laughable.

At the same time, everyone recognized that the sentiment in the activist community was that the trial had to take place in Hennepin County because it is the most racially diverse county in Minnesota, and the chances of having black jurors sit in judgment of Chauvin was higher in Hennepin County than any other county in Minnesota, most of which have negligible minority populations.

That shouldn’t be any factor at all, and the promise of having a higher likelihood of having black jurors in the case — presumably improving the chances of convicting Chauvin notwithstanding the fact that he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence just like anyone else — is antithetical to the notion of “justice.” The judicial system provides for a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution. “Justice” is in the process of reaching a verdict. “Justice” does not come from decisions to improve the chances for a conviction. Criminal cases are purposely styled as “Minnesota v. Chauvin” or “United States v. John Doe” and not “George Floyd v. Derek Chauvin.” The justice system doesn’t “vindicate” the victim of the crime. The justice system vindicates the rule of law. Circumstances that afford an accused a fair trial, while at the same time degrading the prospects for a conviction are not a basis to render an objection. The right of the accused to due process and a fair trial before the government can incarcerate you are paramount because they are “liberty” interests. The government is seeking to deprive an individual of their liberty. The government must respect and abide by all the requirements that guarantee due process and a fair trial.

“That’s the best we could do” is not good enough.

But that is all that Minnesota has provided

In January, we learned about a Chinese espionage campaign that exploited four zero-days in Microsoft Exchange. One of the characteristics of the campaign, in the later days when the Chinese probably realized that the vulnerabilities would soon be fixed, was to install a web shell in compromised networks that would give them subsequent remote access. Even if the vulnerabilities were patched, the shell would remain until the network operators removed it.

Now, months later, many of those shells are still in place. And they’re being used by criminal hackers as well.

On Tuesday, the FBI announced that it successfully received a court order to remove “hundreds” of these web shells from networks in the US.

This is nothing short of extraordinary, and I can think of no real-world parallel. //

xcv • April 14, 2021 12:32 PM

@ O.P.
xcv But every courthouse in the United States is running on Microsoft’s legal-industry-specific software products. Lexis-Nexis databases, title deed and recording software, court filing software, etc. So some guy is going to end up in the federal penitentiary, and all the court records will be deleted, altered, or hacked on Microsoft software, and after a few years, nobody can even look up any records as to why the guy’s in prison, but they’re never going to let him out, because he’s been classified as a violent felon in the federal prison population.

It makes me wonder what they classify as “violent crime” or not, because pulling the trigger of a handgun with your finger is no more violent than striking a key on a computer keyboard with the same finger — and consequences no longer matter in court — because modern courts no longer require the third of three elements necessary to convict a crime since the time of the ancient Romans, namely

1. mens rea;
2. actus reus; &
3. noxa rea.

The ancient Romans insisted that if (#1) it wasn’t something you intended to do, or (#2) it wasn’t something you really did, or (#3) you did not really harm anyone — then you didn’t commit a crime, and therefore you could not be convicted of a crime.

Modern courts on the other hand have repealed the classical third necessary element of conviction for crime, and omitted due process by either imposing punishment for harmless or victimless acts, or by falsely imputing harm (noxa) where none exists.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/04/the-fbi-is-now-securing-networks-without-their-owners-permission.html/#comment-372456

As a general matter, Potter could be convicted of the charge each of the following was proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Her conduct in withdrawing her service weapon was “culpably negligent”.
2. That negligence created an unreasonable risk, and
3. In doing so she CONSCIOUSLY took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm.
   Maybe because of my capitalization and emphasis you might detect a hint of where I think there might be a problem in the case against her. //

A Glock and a Taser do not feel the same in your hand — and in some respects, the design of the Taser is purposely so.

But I want to give a H/T here to my friend Jazz Shaw over at Hotair who was the first I saw to raise the issue of “slips and capture” and how it might play into the analysis of Potter’s mistake.

What is “slips and capture”? I’m guessing that is a very common question, and one we will hear more about in the weeks and months ahead. //

“Capture” is the term used for when the officer’s attention is “captured” by an outside distraction. In the same moment, a high level of discernment is necessary to engage in a specific and precise form of conduct — in this case, making an intentional move to grab the Taser rather than their handgun. But the distraction takes away from the ability to engage in the higher-ordered thinking at a specific moment in time when needed, and the actor — in this case Potter — “slips” in the processing of what she needs to do and instead follows a well-practiced course of activity without the brain making an appropriate “attention check” before an action takes place that cannot be recalled. The action which is unintentionally taken is normally that which is the most habitually reinforced by practice — i.e., drawing her handgun.

Kevin McCullough synopsized it in a Townhall piece, “Why Biden is Erasing America .”

He’s attempting to undo American accountability in elections through his support of HR1. He’s attempting to undo our economic foundations with massive printing (read that: devaluing) of our currency. He’s attempting to destroy free enterprise and job growth with coming massive tax increases. He’s attempting to take away individual liberties with proposed mask mandates, and desired lockdowns.

He supports any attempt to end the Senate filibuster—in order to push through horrific laws by the thinnest margins ever attempted. He’s attempting to overwhelm our security at our borders by encouraging 100’s of 1000’s of unverifiable persons of unknown origins to cross our borders without scrutiny nor penalty. He wants the police weakened. He is pledging to take guns away from law abiding owners. And he wants to pervert the justice system so dramatically that the Constitution becomes unrecognizable.

Biden and Democrats are trying any and all political maneuvers now to consolidate their power and block out Republicans in the future, and that’s what this is all about.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time…”

This language seems to emphasize the “supremacy” of free exercise claims in the view of the five-Justice majority. This may be why CJ Roberts chose to not join the majority, as it goes against his incrementalist approach to developing new Court precedent. I predict the five Justices in the majority will return to this sentence in future cases on a host of religious freedom matters that are currently the subject of litigation around the country, many of which involve clashes between the constitutionally grounded religious free exercise right, and statutorily based “civil rights.” //

First, this was not a decision on the “merits” of the case now pending in the Ninth Circuit. What was under Supreme Court review was the refusal by the Ninth Circuit to grant an injunction against enforcement of the California restrictions while the case is pending before the Ninth Circuit. The question was whether California would be allowed to enforce the restrictions in place while it defended the case on appeal after the restriction had been upheld by a district court judge in San Jose. The Ninth Circuit had declined to issue an injunction while the matter was being reviewed, and late on Friday the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ordered that the injunction be issued while the matter is pending review. //

The Ninth Circuit panel looked at the prior decisions of SCOTUS which evaluated similar gathering venues and allowed occupancy under other types of regulations — churches v. shopping venues — and concluded its task was to compare the impact of the California restriction on in-home religious activities with the impact on in-home non-religious activities. Since both were similarly burdened by the California restriction — unlike the churches v. shopping venues in earlier SCOTUS decisions which were unequally burdened — the Ninth Circuit concluded the restrictions on in-home services would survive constitutional scrutiny.

But this approach failed to give sufficient importance to the constitutional foundation of religious free exercise. It’s not that the Ninth Circuit was defending California’s restriction, the Ninth Circuit simply drew the wrong conclusion from prior SCOTUS’s orders as to what analytic framework it should employ. In some respects this is a product of the fact that the Supreme Court has developed this body of law via the “shadow docket” and not in one comprehensive majority opinion on the issues being decided.

The court does not exist to have its reputation protected. It exists to uphold the Constitution, something Roberts should probably become more acquainted with. //

Adam Liptak
@adamliptak
Justice Kagan, dissenting: "The law
does not require that the state equally treat apples and watermelons." //

In other words, Kagan believes the state can have completely arbitrary, discriminatory rules which reward certain sectors while cracking down on religious gatherings. Movie sets with cafeteria tents are fine. Black Lives Matter protests are gravy. But having your neighbor over to pray for you? Kagan believes the state can send you to jail for that based on its own whim. It’s tyrannical, but we are at a point where nothing surprises me anymore. //

Refr
2 hours ago
Funny that a man so concerned about the SCOTUS's reputation and legacy has done for more damage to both since he's been on the bench. //

mlmorrison44
2 hours ago
One small step from--
Justice Kagan, dissenting: "The law does not require that the state equally treat conservatives and progressives. //

acrucesalus mlmorrison44
2 hours ago
Apples and watermelons. Does that also mean the state also doesn’t have to treat blacks and whites the same? Or Asians and Hispanics the same? How about people with disabilities? Can they be treated differently from non-disabled? Not to mention the sexually confused vs heterosexuals.
What is that meme every love loves so much? It’s settled law? Until it isn’t apparently.
These justices have as much sense as a watermelon.

Why not? There’s only one explanation. Prosecutors didn’t tell you. Antifa-friendly Attorney General Keith Ellison, who picked those multiple private attorneys from white-shoe firms to replace regular Hennepin County prosecutors, didn’t tell you. The media obviously didn’t tell you. And the threatening mob that recorded the horrific site of George Floyd handcuffed and prone on a Minneapolis street didn’t tell you. Black Lives Matter certainly didn’t tell you. This is the group that overtly lied about the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor, Patrick Kimmons, Jacob Blake, and others. //

Midway through the second week of testimony, defense attorney Eric Nelson showed video from police body-worn cameras from a different angle showing Derek Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s shoulder and upper back, not his neck. Prosecutors immediately began changing their verbiage from “neck” to “neck area,” according to Andrew Branca of Legal Insurrection, who is listening to the trial as I am. //

Pills found in the Mercedes SUV and the police squad car, where Floyd had been for a brief time, had meth and fentanyl in them, which he was believed to have eaten to hide evidence from cops. //

Chauvin and his partner came to back up two other cops who had tussled with Floyd in an attempt to get him in the back of their squad car. It was a priority-one call for a non-compliant, suspected drug-addled perpetrator who had just fought with cops. They encountered Floyd, whom his girlfriend testified worked out every day with weights and played sports. Chauvin weighed 140 pounds and is 5’9″, compared to Floyd’s 223 pounds and 6’4″ frame. //

Testimony in cross-examination of the prosecution’s medical care training expert, Nicole MacKenzie, revealed that the hostile crowd could have contributed to Floyd’s death. How? Due to the hostility, threats, and the possibility that the crowd could get violent, the Minneapolis officers had to “load and scoot” Floyd to get to a safe area where they would meet paramedics and treat him. Paramedics arrived at the previous location and had to find where Floyd had been moved to, burning up a crucial eleven minutes.

“No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.”

This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law.

From The Atlantic:

As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

“Lazy cheat” excuse to impinge on your rights.

In a unanimous ruling, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that Shawnee State University violated Prof. Nicholas Meriwether’s rights of free speech and free exercise of religion by punishing him for resisting school rules that forced him to address students in the terms of their choosing.

Meriwether, a philosophy professor and devout Christian, sued Shawnee State, claiming that its mandate to use terms that conflict with biology infringed on his religious belief that gender is fixed from the moment of conception.

The court’s decision, written by a judge appointed to the bench by President Trump and issued Friday, upheld Meriwether’s argument.

“The First Amendment interests are especially strong here because Meriwether’s speech also relates to his core religious and philosophical beliefs,” Judge Amul Thapar wrote in a 32-page decision. //

“To accede to these demands would have required Dr. Meriwether to communicate views regarding gender identity that he does not hold, that he does not wish to communicate, and that would contradict (and force him to violate) his sincerely held Christian beliefs,” the lawsuit reads.

The suit claims that “the number of potential gender identities is infinite” and that there are over 100 “different options currently available.”

School officials countered by saying that respecting students’ pronouns is a part of Meriwether’s job, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. //

Meriwether’s win on appeal, handed down by Thapar, who was rumored to be one of the attorneys on the list to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, allows him to recoup damages for the school’s decision to reprimand him.

“Nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job,” his attorney John Bursch, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, said of Meriwether’s case.

Early today, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a detention order entered by a district court judge and remanded the case for a further detention hearing for Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart. Munchel has been identified as a member of the Oath Keepers, and Eisenhart is his mother and a vocal proponent of the January 6 protests.

The decision was 2-1, and the panel of appeals court judges included a Clinton appointee, an Obama appointee, and a Trump appointee. The Trump appointee, Judge Katsas, dissented, but only on the basis that he would have remanded the case back to the district court judge with an order that the defendants be released on bond, whereas the two-judge majority was sending the case back for further proceedings consistent with the Appeals Court’s order.

So it was really a 3-0 loss by the government on the lower court decision to hold the defendants without bail pending trial — something the government has asked for in a number of Jan. 6 protest cases.

Successful libel actions are good for the press. They help keep it free of censorship, by enabling the public to trust that the press has respect for the truth and does not knowingly or negligently spread lies. Allowing blatant falsehoods to circulate unchecked turns the public against the press.

Accordingly, trust in the media has been declining steadily since the Sullivan decision and is now at an all-time low. The latest Gallup survey found 60 percent of the U.S. public has little or no trust in the media, with self-identified Republicans’ trust dropping from 32 percent in 2015 to 10 percent in December 2020.

To help restore at least some of that lost credibility, the Supreme Court should heed Thomas and Silberman and revisit the arrogant, unjustified, and immensely destructive Sullivan decision.

The court ruled that the Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when she unilaterally issued changes for how to consider absentee ballots in Michigan.

The judge held that she was required to go through the state legislature that she didn’t have the right to just make unilateral changes on her own.

The issues involved such things as sending absentee ballot applications to all registered voters and then how absentee ballots should be considered. This affected things such as judging whether the signature verification was valid. Michigan requires a signature on the application for the absentee ballot and a signature on the return ballot envelope. Those are then matched against the signature on file. //

But unfortunately, of course, now it’s too late to make any difference in the November election. The suit was filed in October of last year but not decided until this month.

The losing side needed to know that a fair shake was given, and that justice prevailed, even if it wasn't the outcome they wanted. That did not happen after Nov. 3. //

A Rasmussen survey last month found that 61 percent of Republicans say Joe Biden did not win the election fairly. That number hasn’t changed much since early January, when 69 percent of GOP voters voiced the same concern. That 34 percent of all voters and 36 percent of independents agree with them is a strong signal that something went terribly amiss in the maelstrom of election cases. //

Yet to understand why there is still widespread unease with the election, would it not be better to stop demanding conformity and instead dig deeper to see what the courts told us in those cases, and what they did not? A review of them shows that, contrary to a common narrative, few were ever considered on the merits. //

When most needed, the court that once took the time to render a decision on whether a tomato is a fruit or vegetable chose to punt on each of the key presidential election cases. American voters are worse off for it as confidence in elections erodes. //

The election of 2020, which included more than 155 million votes, was decided by approximately 300,000 votes in six states, or 0.2 percent of the electorate, all of which came by an unnatural flip of results late on election night. Despite judges’ repeated hand-wringing that any court action would disenfranchise millions of voters, the reality is that millions of others may have been disenfranchised, and they instinctively suspect so.

The one thing many voters seem to have learned through the legal chaos is that it’s easier to commit election violations than to stop them. So the electorate remains divided—even after “86 election cases.”