Now this is something that I have personally wanted since the year 2000, when the presidential election was compromised by the State of Florida. There the vote was so close, that a recount was ordered. The Republicans at that time, had the Courts intervene, and stopped the recount before it was completed, short-circuiting the election process and unfairly awarding the Republicans the presidency, as well as a majority in the Senate.
I kinda disagree on your analysis of this, as there were repeated recounts, and Florida's election laws specifically stated 'you must turn in your papers on X date'. The Democrats wanted to ignore that and keep recounting until Gore won Florida.
This elections, the Courts wisely chose to not interfere in the election process, throwing out every single case but one, from Drumfs challenge. The courts returned the responsibility directly back to the American people, and to the individual states, to build a more transparent and fair system to conduct elections. The Drumf was not wrong, their are a lot of irregularities in the election process, as well as some clear cases of voter disenfranchisement while the voting was occurring.during this last election. Never mind that the Republican party has been practicing voter disenfranchisement before the elections, ...for at least, the last twenty years. This last election, the Courts just gave them back, what they have been handing out to the American people for the last two decades.
Which is unintentionally hilarious, as it's the same 'punt' they used to avoid dealing with the ACA. 'It's not our job to determine when laws are completely fucking useless'. Ooooo-kay...
Where Drumfs supporters crossed a clear line though, is when they no longer peaceably protested. That would be, when they forcibly broke into the Capitol, and disrupted the Congress that was in session, that they had already duly elected to conduct their business for them, and then forcibly interfered with the election as it was occurring. For the record, the changes to ensure a fair election process has to occur at the local and state level, becuase that is what the courts decided.
Completely agree, although -- as has been stated before -- the pearl clutching and sniveling looks more than a little hypocritical considering what had transpired over the last year.
Let this be a lesson: legitimizing political violence is a bad idea, and sooner or later the other side starts using it.
Also just so you know, peaceful protest, ...doesn't really work. It's a complete waste of time and resources. Here is an example of the peaceful protest march of Iranian Women, marching for their right to dress as they prefer, and demanding equal rights.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/iran-women-revolution-hijab-protests-ayatollah-khomeini-a8251686.html
Mike Vanderboegh (an irascible, cranky pro-2A blogger and activist) once opined that if Mahatma Gandhi had tried his civil disobedience tactics on the Imperial Japanese (circa WW2), his bayoneted and beheaded corpse would've been found floating down the Ganges River along with his followers. The tactics work with a people and government who prefer peaceful resolution and are willing to listen, as well as having a moral center that abides by such. Iran does not have that. Britain did, hence why Gandhi got away with it.