PREPARE FOR ANOTHER CIVIL WAR?

So much for Our Democracy^(TM).  Democrat politicians and their court intellectuals for the Democrats have no problem with not certifying an election if they gain some benefit by it.  "Without clear guidance from the Court, House Democrats suggest that they might not certify a Trump win on January 6."

That's not sitting well with Red State's Nick Arama.  Yes, people will attempt to distinguish the odd challenge to a slate of electors from the Trump campaign's lawfare late in 2020.

We've already seen how hypocritical Democrats can be when it comes to questioning elections.

Democrats have been questioning/denying the results of elections/objecting to electoral counts for decades. Yet, if Republicans raise questions, that's somehow a threat to "democracy" and "treason." You see it constantly on X, along with all the other Russia conspiracy theories from those on the left. It's a cultish insanity.

That distinction becomes less persuasive, though, when the lawfare might come from the Jarrett regency.

So wait, the people screaming about "democracy" and former President Donald Trump are now mulling over the question of not certifying Trump if he wins? And if they do it, they'll likely do it, claiming they would be doing it "for democracy,"

According to the story, senior House Democrats wouldn't commit now to certifying his win without a decision on Trump's eligibility from the Supreme Court. So even if he wins, it sounds like they're considering playing games.

Should the Supreme Court be compelled to rule on Trump's eligibility, the decision might be as fraught as Dred Scott, irrespective of how it goes.

While Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) conceded that there could be violence, he said it wouldn’t necessarily stop them from trying to disqualify him. “We might just decide that’s something we need to prepare for.”

So much for "democracy" or any principles they claim to be adhering to on the question. They are truly shameless if they would go this route. And yes, that would result in a crisis of unimaginable proportions if they tried that. But I wouldn't put it past them. It's always and only about their own power.

According to James Joyner, in the more friendly to Democrats confines of Outside the Beltway, such lawfare is a truly insane proposition.

So, let me get this straight. The United States Senate has already acquitted Trump of insurrection-related impeachment charges. The United States Supreme Court will have ruled that the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump. The American voters will have chosen at least 270 Trump Electors. And Democrats in Congress are then going to say, “Nope, he’s an insurrectionist so he doesn’t get to be President!”

That would spark rioting that would make January 6 seem like a peaceful protest.

And here, dear reader, is where things stand.

Like it or not, if Trump is on the ballot in November and wins, he’s the next President. Given that it’s really unlikely that the courts will keep him off the ballot, the thing to do is defeat him at the ballot box.

Also, like it or not, the course of action those Democrats, their court intellectuals, and their organized protestors would pursue constitute, by the Democrats' own standards, an insurrection.

Democrats could certainly deliver speeches saying Trump is an insurrectionist and should be ineligible. But, the Supreme Court having ruled otherwise, they are obligated to follow the mandate of the voters. Indeed, doing otherwise would itself be at least as much an insurrection as the one Trump tried to lead.

We have much to look forward to.