If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?

If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
 

Michael R2

Active member
If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
Are you assuming some form of monolithic power, with all courts having the same point of view, guided by the same power?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
Do you understand the concept of separation of powers? The judiciary are not power. They make legal judgements. Most of the judgements dismissing cases brought by Trump supporters have been made by judges appointed by Trump. They may be Conservative, but they also have integrity. If evidence is judged to be invalid or insufficient, and that judgement is upheld through all available appeals, by people who are trained and experienced in the law, then that's it. There is no scope for disgruntled laymen to complain because the judgement went against them. The judgement went against them because they were wrong.

If those in power really don't like the judgements of the courts, they can change the law. That is the role of the legislature, to make and amend the law.
 

J regia

Well-known member
If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
That's called a dictatorship and not a democracy based on the separation of powers as defined in the Westminster system of government.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
Let's provide an example, since you have once again failed to be specific. Those in power at the moment are the Republicans. If they chose to claim that the evidence that Biden won the election, which is not just valid but overwhelming, was invalid, then you would have a dictatorship, rather than a democracy. It is very unlikely, vanishingly so, but it is an example of what you refer to in your op. . In a functioning democracy, your op will not happen.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
The validity of evidence in a legal setting is mostly objective. Lawyers know beforehand - for the most part - whether a particular piece of evidence if going to be accepted or not, and this is used when deciding whether a case can be brought to court.

Thus, whether someone's "in power" or not doesn't matter too much.

Sure, a judge does get to rule on the admissibility of evidence that there aren't clear standards for, but that judges rulings are subject to being overturned by other judges. The judicial system is somewhat self-correcting, and has mechanisms for dealing with unfair rulings.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Do you understand the concept of separation of powers? The judiciary are not power. They make legal judgements. Most of the judgements dismissing cases brought by Trump supporters have been made by judges appointed by Trump. They may be Conservative, but they also have integrity. If evidence is judged to be invalid or insufficient, and that judgement is upheld through all available appeals, by people who are trained and experienced in the law, then that's it. There is no scope for disgruntled laymen to complain because the judgement went against them. The judgement went against them because they were wrong.

If those in power really don't like the judgements of the courts, they can change the law. That is the role of the legislature, to make and amend the law.
This really is the answer to the dilemma JJ looks to be setting up in this thread. The judiciary is never "in power" (though the devil's in the details, of course).
 

Gus Bovona

Active member
If those who decide if evidence is valid or not are in power and decide valid evidence isn't valid, how do you win in court?
Do you have a single instance of evidence that you think is valid but the courts have said it isn't? Your condunrum is well taken in the abstract, but applying it to the election controversy is going to run up against the question of whether the evidence is actually valid. I'd love to hear what you think was valid evidence.

For instance, there are articulated and reasonable reasons why the follow claimed evidence is poor or inadmissible:

1. signed affadavits - these are generally heresy, because the person making the statements in the affidavit can't be cross-examined by opposing lawyers.

2. computer voting machines - the computer totals are able to be cross checked against the paper ballot that the voter fills out and scans into the machine

3. mail-in ballots for everyone - a few states have been using this system with no problems for several years (Utah and Oregon, IIRC).
 
It appears in these answers, the presupposition is based upon it being a democracy and or a democratic republic. And things being the way they should be and in order under the separation of powers and U.S. constitution...

I didn't put this in the question and maybe should have. If it is a democratic republic but the people in power whether liberal, conservative or etc all had a common thinking that it should be a certain way in all branches of government and all checks and balances should result in that way. These people have people thinking that same in the house, congress, the judicial, law enforcement, intelligence agencies and etc. And they have majority power.. If they all colluded and something went to court, could they determine certain things not valid or valid if there is not accountablely by anyone else? Like a dictatorship of ideology and a group, not one person.

The only accountablely was the people but the people wasn't mobilized to a number that was sufficient to give accountablely.

This is not something based upon the statis quo but based upon if there is a common thinking that could change how things are supposed to go if the U.S. constitution is followed.
 
Last edited:
Top