By ART CHANCE
I’ve been reading the Left’s frothing about the Texas election lawsuit.
One published on an NBC News site is an example of just about everything that is wrong with American education, law, and politics. The author, a law professor in Texas at a state university, is teaching young minds full of mush in law school. His idea of persuasion is “I don’t like it.” It follows that you shouldn’t either. That is pretty much the state of argumentation and education these days.
There once was a whole course of study called rhetoric and argumentation which was usually a part of a legal education and higher degrees.
Rhetoric and argumentation is based on logic, and logic is hard; it is higher mathematics hard. You might have noticed that not many Americans take higher mathematics and we import our mathematicians and engineers from India and China. It’s just toooo haaaard for Americans so we take studies courses.
When I was in exile from the Executive Branch back in the mid-nineties, going to the monastery wasn’t an option ,so I went to the university to get a bit of a “tune-up” after 30 years or so of only reading about trade-craft and Tom Clancy novels. Mostly I took literature, history, and writing classes, but I also took a 200-level logic class, and I got my only B in a University of Alaska class.
The professor was an adjunct. He was a conservative, rigid, even dogmatic guy with a Ph.D in Philosophy and a J.D from Gonzaga, and he lived up to his conservative Catholic, Jesuit education. He and I became friends, while most of my classmates hated him. Thirty-five people enrolled in that class, and seven took the final.
His idea of a final for a 200 Level class was giving us a 1,500-word excerpt from C.J. John Marshall’s decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, written in 18th Century baroque legal English. We had to “distill” it into standard “subject, verb, object” English, identify all the syllogisms, and then analyze all the syllogisms for logical validity.
Then he gave us 50 syllogisms to analyze. He graded on the strict, old-fashioned curve. I got the B; I was tempted to ask to see the A, but I can’t quarrel that I deserved the B. That is the way education once was before there were participation trophies. That was the professor’s last semester at University of Alaska Southeast. The next year there was a groovy long-haired guy who had classes out on the grass with the students in a circle. I’m sure those are some really smart kids.
To bring this back to the point, the opposition to the Texas lawsuit is “I don’t like it.” This is a state university professor shrieking like a ninth grader.
Leftist argumentation is almost exclusively a combination of invalid syllogisms and subjectivist fallacies. I thought about how I could avoid making this into a logic class; I decided I couldn’t but I’d try to limit it.
Here is a classic invalid syllogism:
God is love / Love is blind / Stevie Wonder is blind / Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
If you think about it, that argument leaves out a few alternatives to Stevie Wonder being God. I think that is called an undistributed middle proposition, but it has been awhile.
The other staple of leftist argument is the subjectivist fallacy. The most common is “I feel strongly therefore;” The other most common leftist fallacies are first, “the appeal to the mob;” everybody believes that Joe Biden won the election. The next most common is the appeal to authority, argumentum ad baculum; I’m a law professor, therefore you must accept my opinion.
The latter is mostly what we’re dealing with here — a law professor saying, I believe it, therefore it is true.
Return to Texas vs. the defendant states, Texas argues that those states violated the US Constitution by changing their election procedures during the course of the election and doing so by Executive or Judicial action rather than by Legislative action as required by the US Constitution.
There is no argument that the defendant states changed their election laws by Executive and Judicial actions in contravention of the constitutional requirement that election laws can only be enacted by the Legislative body.
The U.S. Supreme Court can simply refuse to take the case. One or more of the defendant states can make a motion to dismiss. The Court can simply dismiss Texas’ claims and this case goes away; China Joe wins the presidency.
There’s a good argument that CJ Taney should have done that in Dred Scott and the US Civil War would have been delayed, if not avoided. I think that if left to his own devices, that’s what Chief Justice Roberts would do, but there are five other justices who might not see it as Roberts does.
My money would be on the Court taking it on. Roberts can slither off and join the minority. That effectively makes Clarence Thomas the Chief Justice, and Thomas rightfully has a bone to pick with China Joe. If the Roberts is in the minority, the senior associate justice gets to write the majority opinion or assign the writing.
I’m not a lawyer, before any of my fans point that out, but I hired, fired, and supervised lawyers and beat a lot of them like rented mules in arbitrations and labor board hearings; I’m pretty good at this stuff.
I don’t know the psychology of DC very well anymore. I can’t rule out the Supremes just walking away from this, but I don’t think they will. The Democrats have threatened the very existence of the Supreme Court with their “court packing” scheme, and I don’t think the Court will take that lying down.
We’re facing an existential battle for the American Republic and the last line of defense is the Supreme Court. I think the line will hold, but prayers might be helpful.
rt Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska, formerly of Juneau and now living in Anchorage. He is the author of the book, “Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance,” available at Amazon.
As always my friend is brilliant
He is a treasured member of the AK Roundtable
Excellent piece, Art. ‘Nuff said.
Let’s hope to god the Court refuses to take the case. Otherwise, if they ruled for Trump it would cause another situation similar to the aforementioned Taney Court’s Dred Scott decision – potential civil war as the demo/liberals come absolutely unglued. Joe did win a substantial vote majority, even if not the Electoral College. To the liberals, that’s what counts. At this point the only reasonable solution is to sit this one out, employ political resistance tactics in the senate for the next 4 years and hope for the best.
Billy, trouble with that logic is that the Senate will likely flip due to Dominion voting machines. This will lead to one party rule. A party that will be greatly opposed. I foresee a civil strife worse than the Balkans by the in the ’90’s. Essentially the snowflakes vs Patriots. Who wins? China is my bet, oh by the way, what links can be found between China and the Biden family? This is one situation where sitting it out will only make certain your demise.
So don’t make things right and cave in because your scared of what the socialist nut balls will do next. “Weak”
Majority rules = Mob rules, when you don’t have an electoral.
This would suit all the people in high populated cities, as they would be able to dictate their will across the rest of the country and silence the rest of the countries vote. That way they could look down their snooty noses at us, pat us on our heads, and tell us what we need, because we aren’t smart enough to know what we need in their own righteousness thinking.
It’s always refreshing to listen to someone who had a well founded grasp of a matter.
So the supreme Court is going to rule that these states violated their own election laws which makes their election invalid. There’s no way to know how many people signed one person’s ballot. Officials say after the recounts that it didn’t change the election results but that only has to do with legal ballets. Not the thousands of illegal ones. We’re going to have to do a new election under armed watchful eyes of the national guard, or if those States fail to do anything after the supreme Court rules, then it’s going to come down to us citizens to decide what we are going to do. It’s going to come down to how bad do you want it? People are sheep, Art, you know how easy it was for Germany and Japan and Russia and China and other countries to quickly be persuaded to follow the bad guys. People don’t really want to fight. Our founding fathers and the Minutemen, and all the various States malicious back then were brave and put everything on the line. I don’t think people are as hardened as they once were, Bro lives matter don’t want to fight anybody that can shoot back. They’re in the terrorist business and the stealing TVs business. A bunch of old men from the baby boomers generation can’t get this done and sadly the soft generations that we have now are on the wrong side.
Well said Art. No one studies logic anymore – and anyone under about 50 years old only thinks of logic as a kind of formula in a spreadsheet that they hire a programmer to create… “We’re facing an existential battle for the American Republic” – yep, and the commies will stop at nothing to destroy it – and us.
The socialist left don’t play by any set of rules anymore. They have no honor. It’s win at all cost. They don’t follow the Constitution. Look at these judges that are making decisions that are way off base, only to have their decisions reversed later, they are buying time. So how do you fight a piece of the country that doesn’t care how they win only that you lose? I think it’s going to come down to a fight if we care enough to save this country.
Math is Haaard. But you sir, are a gem! Live long and prosper!
Thoughtful and poetically true. When I went to law school we actually had to read the case law thoroughly and be prepared to be called on under harsh Socratic examination. Sometimes for a blistering 30-minutes, under severe scrutiny and subject to classmate humiliation. Today, law students can answer the professor’s questions with these words:
Racism. White Privilege. Non-diversity. Unfairness. Gender discrimination. Gay-phobia.
And Art, I doubt most law students today know what sylogistic logic means. Keep up the good work, Art.
So much for prayers.
Too bad all your opinion was all for nothing…you were wrong. The Supreme Court denied hearing the case from Texas.
We are looking at the beginnings of another Civil War…
The three Trump appointees don’t want their houses burned. They’re vying for being the last to be eaten by the crocodile.
Actually, none of them want their houses burned. All the burning would take place in the Black-run counties where election fraud occured. Dems were clever and cunning in 2020. Cheat Trump where the majority of Blacks vote, and if detected, blame Trump for initiating a race war through his lawsuits in the counties where Blacks live. Another example of how White, leftist Democrats rule by manipulation, racism, cheating, theft, and lies. So what’s new?
Y’all have fun; I’m going to go clean my guns.
Do you have laser mounts for precision shots?
My 9 does.
A lot of big barroom talk here. So tell me seriously that you’d actually shoot someone for political reasons.
No, I didn’t think so.
Yes. Yes I would.
That’s usually the reason that it does happen. You tried to impeach our president, you wasted millions of dollars trying to do a political coup attempt, you stole this election. People have died for less.
You need to take that logic class again, Art.
Bill,
Where have you been buddy. I was starting to think the ‘rona gotcha!
Ahh yes, lucky for you and that draft deferment, now you’re all about liberty, democracy, standing up for freedom and such..
How many more years will you be sucking off the state teet by way of generous pension?
Because by your own admission you’re so worth it. 🙂
Good article, Art, but sadly you were wrong. I’m really surprised the SC refused to even hear it.
No Standing to Sue. A cheap way to dispose of a case that the justices are afraid of. The justices never even allowed the evidence to be presented to them.
Art, you’re a fairly coherent writer when not blathering about other people’s blame. Unfortunately you just lack reason, and that my good man chops your legs off at the knees. Sorta like the knights crossing from Monty Python.
Your side lost again, batting 1,000, the impossible has been done.
Wow,Art. You got a B at UAA a 200 level class. Color me impressed—not. UAA can’t even find professors with any qualifications to staff their classes. You aren’t an attorney, and you were woefully wrong about law and the Constitution. So basically, your argument is “so I believe it, it must be true:,which is specifically which you thought was so awful in your B grade education.. You should be embarrassed. The Supreme Court just struck this whole mess down. Bye, boy.
Paige Hodson what a conceited elitist you are.
I’d like to see how well you’d do on that test. I’m betting you don’t even get the B.
That was my only semester of not making the Chancellor’s List, but I did make the Dean’s List while working full time for the Legislature.
Paige Hodson, your point that Mr. Chance is not an attorney is, in itself, a logical fallacy; a form of argumentum ad verecundiam. Your illogical implication that his points are untrue merely because he lacks a credential reveals weakness in your’s.
The real meat and potatoes cases are the ones being handled by Sidney Powell and her legal teams. Watch what happens with them.
This is what qualifies for intellectual heft on the right? William F. Buckley is turning in his grave (and btw, the Executive branch adopts rules to implement laws passed by Legislatures; that’s what happened in the “offending states”). Of course the SCOTUS swatted this laughable suit away.
No, genius, the Executive Branch can “adopt rules to implement laws…” only if the Legislative Branch specifically delegates the authority to do so, and in some of the defendant states it was the Judiciary which simply imposed processes.
The left always throws obfuscation and targets the messenger when faced with logical fact. The administrations and judicial branches didn’t ” adopt rules to implement laws”, they rewrote them or amended them. The supreme court is trying to NOT be involved in what is an essential shredding of the constitution and they can’t run forever. If the Constitution no longer has standing, then there is anarchy and we go back to burying people that attempt to impose their tyranny on us. It is pretty basic, the left, from the US congress on down, want to have a set of rules only the conservatives have to follow. You can’t steal the life’s work of people and expect no response.
I’m thinking they want to see an actual fraud case rather than an arcane legal theory case. I think it is a good arcane legal theory, really just an extension of Bush v. Gore, but, Hell, nobody on the Left accepts Bush v. Gore to this day.
Art, I know I’m late to this conversation and I agree with you but the latest information is quite stunning. As you know, the court already rejected the Texas case and to make matters worse a SCOTUS staffer has come public about a very loud argument between Justice Roberts and Justices Alito & Thomas about taking the case. He stated, Roberts refuses to hear the case for fear of violence and rioting. I kid you not! This means he is abdicating his sworn duty to the Constitution and the people over fear, not judicial standing. He should immediately resign! It appears our courts and congress are revealing themselves as severely compromised. Trumps 2018 Executive Order against Foreign Interference in an election is looking better and better. I’m anticipating martial law and mass arrests within the next several weeks due to the massive election fraud and compromised judges and politicians that took payouts from the CCP (China). This may transition into the use of the Insurrection Act and suspension of Habeas Corpus. He will not allow the CCP through Biden to destroy this nation.
We need to stop pretending any part of the judiciary is impartial. Its impossible for any human being to be so. They all have inherent bias and political views which began formation in childhood. The political leanings of SCJ Roberts have become more apparent since his appointment
Another superb article, Mr. Chance.
Comments are closed.