In their self-righteous protest of the Supreme Court's decision to throw out the appeal regarding the March 19 shooting incident, the pan-blue camp has once again illustrated its hypocrisy and complete lack of respect for democracy and rule of law ("Pan-blues decry court's decision," June 18, page 3).
In a democracy, criminal accusations must be supported by concrete physical evidence and/or the sworn testimony of the citizenry, neither of which were presented to the court in a way that even comes close to justifying the accusations that last year's shooting was staged.
Even if there was such evidence (and, again, there apparently is not), how on earth can anybody assume that the shooting incident influenced the elections either way? Is there polling data to suggest that "sympathy votes" were cast? If such votes were cast, then where are the thousands of citizens who, on election night, were ready to vote blue or not vote at all, and voted green out of sympathy? Wouldn't there by now, over a year later, be an outcry from these "duped" voters? Furthermore, isn't it also just as likely that the shooting incident caused anger amongst those who immediately concluded that the shooting was staged, and garnered pro-blue "outrage votes?"
My point is that these are all questions for speculation and improvable in a court of law, short of calling every voter in the country to the witness stand. Is it possible that the pan-blue lawyers do not know these legal basics, or is it at all conceivable that these lawsuits were motivated by something other than the pan-blues' self-professed concern for "justice, honor and moral conscience?"