Re:It's easy enough to take back (Score 1)

Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. "In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true - that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor of Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent," the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff's allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

I admit, I've gotten pretty disillusioned with the voting process lately. The link you gave got me curious though, and I actually went looking for the court document your linked article reports on, in order to actually confirm my disillusionment. But, if I'm reading the court docket correctly, (which, in fairness, I may not be. IANAL), the court actually agreed that the DNC argument was bullshit, and that they *couldn't* rig the primary. The suit was dismissed due to technical reasons where the court pointed out that they don't have any jurisdiction to actually hear the case.

At the bottom of page 15 and the top of page 16, of this document http://jampac.us/wp-content/up..., the court states:

"For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise —— political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle."
emphasis mine, for clarity
To me, that sounds like the court refused to accept the DNC's argument that they were allowed to pick whomever they wanted, regardless of the vote. The very next line following the above quote explains in part why the court was dismissing Number 3 of the 4 complaints brought by the Plaintiffs (the various classes in the class action lawsuit). Other parts of the document explain why the remaining complaints were also dismissed. All were for technical reasons, as the court found that it didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case. You can read about the rest of them at your leisure in that docket.

By the way, I'm not trying to be an asshole or rub anyone's nose in anything here. I was just particularly curious about this personally, and took the time to read through the source material. I know not everyone has the time to do that, so I just wanted to pass along what I learned while reading through it. Hopefully that may shed some additional light on things for anyone else who's curious as well.