They argued in court via their lawyer.

You literally have failed to prove that because you couldn’t show a single quote from any DNC member. And it is in fact NOT one of the 3 specific arguments made according to the document.

That’s an absurd standard.

Not in the slightest. There is absolutely know way we can judge anything without seeing a single actual quote of what was said. Vague meaningless accusations are what Traitorapist Trump does, and it is important to understand that vague claims are completely meaningless.

the Iranian exiles that fled after the overthrow of the Shah, tend to be part of the old ruling class that had disempowered.

And the people stuck behind are the people who don't view the regime as legitimate in this article.

Let's look at your 3 criteria one by one:

or internal support

The regime is definitely illegitimate in eyes of the people.

the context of international relations,

The US has had not diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979 and does not recognize that regime as legitimate.

and control.

Yes they do control people. With torture and murder. But torture and murder is not really viewed as a legitimate way for countries to control their population.

The party argued in court that if they wanted to

You have failed to prove that because couldn't show a single quote from any DNC member. No way in hell can we accept anybody's vague claims, characterizations, or generalization -- because that is one of Pathological Liar Trump's chief tactics and I'm so sick of that bullshit. But even if you had it would reflect only on particular individuals. The DNC has hundreds of members and tens of thousands of past members. The DNC is not a person any more than a corporation is a person. Still, I was actually starting to root for you to prove your case. But nope you definitely failed. If you ever do find actual incriminating quotes from individuals past or present DNC members pretending they can ignore the charter feel free to send them to me. But I am doubting very much that you could ever do that.

they don’t want him to stop.

What they want makes no difference. They don't have the legal right to choose the nominee, only the elected delegates have the legal right. If the delegates went into a closed door smoking allowed room, and the head of the DNC said to them "We are going to nominate Mr X instead of Job Biden. You are all dismissed." Do you have any doubts at all what would happen next? The delegates would all march out and hold a press conference and say "We the elected delegates did not choose Mr X. to be the Dem nominee." There is not a single court in the country that would not side with the delegates.

Oh, now DWS still runs the DNC?

No. So even if you found any direct quotes from DWS, it would show DWS to be a bad person, but would not reflect on the current DNC at all. Like I said, the DNC is not a person. It is a diverse group of individuals.

If during the debate, the building had collapsed and accidently killed everyone in the room, Americans would be overjoyed at our luck.

I would like so see the median also.

For people making the statistical average hourly wage growth. If your wage gains are less than the numerical average of everyone else, its your employers fault, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics

And your employer will be happy to give you a raise that is less than the statistical average of other people.

The Supreme Dictator regime is in most ways worse than the Shah. The Shah didn't make women wear ridiculous clothes and arrest people for making dancing videos about being happy.

He failed to legitimize the government that has been ruling the country since 1979…?

The monarchy system of the Shah lasted 2500 years. Not sure what the point it.

You don’t have to support theocracy to recognize the absurdity of claiming that a government that’s been in charge for 50 years, and is recognized around the world, is somehow illegitimate.

It is illegitimate as a democracy and government that represents its own people. People are protesting the fakeness of the election by not voting.

We would need a time machine to stop the GOP from grabbing all the productivity gains for the last 44 years.

WTF Can you not read dude? LMFAO!

[...according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is THE SOURCE of labor data for the USA.

GTFO with this

GTFO with your unbelievably ridiculous ignorance. Incredible that you showed the world you have such embarrassing ignorance. LOL!

astroturfing

Fuck off with that. Nobody pays me for shit dude. I'm just a guy who posts stuff to help people get off reddit. Nobody including myself knows what I'm going to post until I post it. But now that you bring this ignorance to my attention, maybe I should focus more on educating people.

If your own wages haven't kept up with inflation, that is not the fault of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's your own employer's fault.

Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing.

It would be a genius move for Biden to arrest Trump right now as a terrorist enemy combatant, but give hints that he's doing this because of the supreme court ruling. And then in order to be prosecuted, the Supreme Court would need to completely reverse this ruling and restore democracy. Even if Biden went to prison after a total reversal of the ruling, he would be regarded by history as a saviour of the country on par with Lincoln.

I agree no one is ever letting go of power unless they are explicitly required to do so.

George Washington did that twice. But he was the anti-Trump.

The Supreme Court not only made the president a king, they also overturned the Magna Carta.

Which the party argued in court that they could do

Bullshit. What was the exact quote made by DWS? You have no supporting quote made by anybody in the DNC for that argument in the document. We would need the full trial transcript to know whether DWS was seriously pretending she could ignore the charter. If you want to be taken seriously, show me an exact quote made by a DNC member in the trial transcript. If you had been able to do that I would say "good job on that" and fully agree that that particular individual should have never worked at the DNC BUT VAGUE CHARACTERIZATIONS ARE WORTHLESS.

According to the document there were exactly 3 arguments.

[The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that

1. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,

2. that they have insufficiently pled those claims,

3. and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.]

Deciding in smoke filled rooms involves ignoring the charter entirely.

Even if that had been an actual argument supported by a quote from a DNC member, this is still 100% false. The charter doesn't say the delegates have to meet in a no smoking building. It just says the delegates pick the candidate. They could meet in any building they wanted to vote on the candidate. Your assertion that the executive committee could legally ignore the general delegates is completely absurd.

Here’s your fucking link. Now don’t read it, immediately dismiss it and demand even more granular proof of what I initially said.

Okay. But I got no idea what "DE 54, at 36:22-24" is supposed to mean. I've never seen this before. And the first thing I noticed is that Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with this because he's not an idiot.

and the judge agreed

Dude what part of "The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. " do you not understand? The judge did not agree that the charter can be dismissed. The judge dismissed the case because plaintiff did not prove any acts of impartiality.

Which you already know and are ignoring in bad faith

Go fuck off with your god damn lies. You don't know shit about me. You are the only one who cares about Kremlin progaganda from 8 years ago. Normal people do not.

If every bad faith centrist who claims they voted for Sanders in the primary actually had

You aren't talking about me. Because I did vote for Sanders twice, and am not a "centrist". You only heard of Sanders when he ran for president in 2016 right? I was a fan of Sanders since before he became a senator when he was just a congressman in the 1990's.

[But they do not allege they ever heard or acted upon the DNC’s claims of neutrality.]

The random person filing this lawsuit is not even alleging that the DNC failed to act impartial. She is apparently alleging that DWS PRIVATELY expressed support for Clinton. So what?

[The DNC’s bias, according to Plaintiffs, came to light after computer hackers penetrated the DNC’s computer network. An individual identified as “Guccifer 2.0"]

You know this is Putin right? You were played by Putin so he could get stooge Traitorapest Trump elected. Doesn't that embarrass you? Sanders was outraged more than any other Dem about Trump's gigantic tax cuts for billionaires. So everybody who fell for Kremlin propaganda let down Bernie Sanders.

[The DNC and Wasserman Schultz argue that

1. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims,

2. that they have insufficiently pled those claims,

3. and that the class allegations must be stricken as facially deficient.]

NONE OF THEIR 3 ARGUMENTS are claiming that they don't have to follow the charter. WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?

[For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise]

First of all this is the judge characterizing that DWS is characterizing something. None of these are direct quotes. THE JUDGE DID NOT SAY THAT THIS WAS ONE IF THE 3 ARGUMENTS of the DNC in the case. We would have the have the original direct quotes of DWS to know if she was seriously pretending that she could ignore the charter. If we had such quotes than DWS would have been immediately fired from the DNC, if she hadn't already quit.

[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. ]

So even in the absolute worst case interpretation of this, there is nothing about the DNC claiming the right to dismiss its delegates. And There is nothing about the DNC claiming the delegates don't have the right to chose the nominee. Which you are implying. WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?

You can always get one of those from non-criminals.

DE 54, at 36:22-24

Link? The only way for people to know if you are taking things out of context is to provide a link.

political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles...the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.

So it is exactly like I told you. No court would allow the Executive Committee to disregard the charter, let alone purge the DNC membership of the newly elected delegates.

Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise

This is a judge characterizing something. There are no quotes from the DNC's hired lawyer, let alone from an actual former DNC member, let alone from a current DNC member. You need to provide an actual quote from an actual DNC member before we can judge this claim accurately.

Wasserman Schultz

She's not even there no more. She is not "the DNC".

That’s the party’s position

It's not the "party's position", and certainly not anything they could legally do. All you have provided is a judge's characterization of a former members characterization who wasn't there to give any testimony and which was completely rejected by the judge. We haven't seen any actual quotes of any actual current or former members of the DNC executive committee.

If the judge said that a DNC member could not break the law on some trivial thing why the hell would you think the legal system would allow the current DNC to reject a fundamental rule that the newly elected delegates ARE ALREADY MEMBERS OF THE DNC and can not be arbitrarily purged? The DNC members legally controls who the executive committee members are (and will do so at the convention). You are asserting the exact opposite is true. The executive committee does not have the legal right to remove members of the DNC. You have things 100% backwards. Bernie Sanders would personally explain that to you if you had a chance to talk to him.

Like I'm talking to a dumbass.