What is right and what is just

There is undoubtedly a large group who feel that the US election was stolen. Large enough and convinced enough to march on the US Capitol building.

But, this brings to light a simple question; does it matter what is right? Or what is just? And is there a difference?

And yes. There is a difference. The right answer is the fundamental, absolute truth. The just answer is the answer which is contextually right for society. Often, these things ARE in alignment. But, some times there is insufficient evidence to ascertain the truth and we must then default to what is just.

As I've said before, the fundamental problem with the current approach is that it sets precedent to unilaterally interfere in any future election. This is the way in which it undermines the democratic process. In any election there will be people who believe it is impossible that the other side won. A sheer refusal to accept that anyone could possibly believe or support anything which differs from their own ideals. All these people require is a sufficient enough echo-chamber to grow that into a revolt.

This is precisely what happened on Wednesday.

I don't believe that the election was stolen. And frankly, I don't think that even the strongest of cases were really arguing that either (PA cases for instance seem all about simply throwing out ballots en masse with undertones that there may also be some fraud there). But, that is another story.

Whether or not I believe it isn't what is relevant. Whether or not you believe that Trump actually won isn't irrelevant either.

Or, put another way, the truth is irrelevant in this context. Frankly, I doubt many from either side will ever be able to sway members of the other side. And, it seems at this point highly unlikely that those in support of Trump will ever find sufficient evidence. So, if whatever side actually supports the truth cannot convince the other side of it, what good is it?

With sufficient evidence of widespread electoral fraud of a nature which would have changed the outcome, this would already be dealt with. Let's not forget, many of the states in question were won by Trump in the last election and have Republicans in power at many levels of power. They have no interest in supporting a Democratic coup. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is now severely, ideologically imbalanced in Trump's favour. If the evidence existed and the cases they were making legitimate... they would have succeeded.

Once again, we're talking about officials who (if anything) would likely prefer a Trump administration. They aren't going to go out their way just to spite him.

So, what the courts are forced to deal out is what is just. But then, that all they have ever done. They pass judgment in accordance with the nature of accusation based upon the evidence provided. They do not technically make a ruling on truth.

What elevates justice over the truth is it's reliance on evidence and rules. To a degree, it is predictable and impartial. It doesn't require you to hold a particular view on it or not. It simply requires that you accept the rules and how they were applied to the evidence. And through such processes, a semblance of order can be maintained.

I'm not suggesting that the truth is generally irrelevant or inferior in any way. Obviously, what is true is important as well. However, many people believe falsehoods. While I obviously do not know what they are, it is true of me as well. It is true of all of us. 

Accepting Biden's win is the just answer. It is the path which leaves open a fair and equitable path for a Republican to unseat him in the future. Accepting Trump's win would be unjust because it would be unjustifiable. It would remove the burden of justification from the process. 

That is the precedent which goes too far. It is just and fair to demand that the results to overturn the election be expected to meet the requirements set out by law to maintain order and a predictable system which can be used to benefit the people. For those are the requirements for all who challenge any laws. It is fair by virtue of impartiality.