New York Times Calls For Democrats to Resist Trump's Inauguration as President

In a rather amazing editorial, an opinion piece in the New York Times has called on the Democratic party to not cooperate in the appointment of Donald Trump as President.

"Where is the Democratic party?" ask writers Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen, as Trump appoints Cabinet members who want to dismantle the departments they will head. Why aren't Democratic leaders making more of Trump's refusal to attend daily Intelligence briefings, of Russian interference in the elections? Why not challenge Mr. Trump in the Electoral college?

At this late date, the editorial is amazing in a way. The nation's most prestigious newspaper, Trump's hometown newspaper whom he has actually visited since the election, is declaring war on his presidency, when they must know it is inevitable.

The rules of a US presidential election are not complicated. The candidate with the most electoral votes wins. The one with the most votes nationally often gets second place.

Fast forward to 2016, and the Democrats are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they are leaving the fight to academics and local organizers who seem more horrified by a Trump presidency than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. The Republicans in 2000 threw everything they could muster against the wall to see if it stuck, with no concern about potential blowback; the Democrats in 2016 are apparently too worried about being called sore losers. Instead of weathering the criticism that comes with fighting an uphill, yet historically important battle, the party is still trying to magic up a plan.

More from the Times:

"There's no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump's anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party. The most we've seen is a response to the C.I.A. revelations, but only with Republicans onboard to give Democrats bipartisan cover.

Take the recount efforts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. While the Democratic Party relitigates grudges in the press, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who received about 64 million fewer votes than Mrs. Clinton, has led the effort. The Democrats have grudgingly participated from the sidelines, but only because public perception forced them to. This effort has proved feeble, with a Pennsylvania judge denying the request because it was "later than last minute."

"Contrast the Democrats' do-nothingness to what we know the Republicans would have done. If Mr. Trump had lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, an army of Republican lawyers would have descended on the courts and local election officials. The best of the Republican establishment would have been filing lawsuits and infusing every public statement with a clear pronouncement that Donald Trump was the real winner. And they would have started on the morning of Nov. 9, using the rhetoric of patriotism and courage."

Dahlia Lithwick (@Dahlialithwick) is a senior editor at Slate. David S. Cohen (@dsc250) is a law professor at Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law. So in fairness, the writers of this opinion piece don't actually work for the New York Tims.

The NY Times' argument that the Republicans wouldn't stand for this fails historically. The Republicans allowed the inauguration of a guy with one term in the US Senate and an incredibly Islamic name, just 7 years after 9/11. This despite his previous association with professors who had called for armed conflict against the US government. There was much nervousness about Barack Hussein Obama, but no one blocked his inauguration, because it was the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box.

Calling for resistance in the face of a lawful election almost qualifies as treason and sedition. Trump didn't cheat. Sorry, it's true. He won fair and square. Recounts have been held, CNNs Martha Raddatz has dried her tears. It's all over but the shouting. Elections have results. Recounts have failed to alter the fact that on January 21, 2017, Donald Trump will be our 45th President.