The National Football League has made the game’s objective very simple for those who have any doubts as to the possibly antiquated motivations of those who started playing professionally as early as 1892.

The team that scores the greater number of points during the entire game is the winner.
— NFL Operations: The Rules

If total yardage were an overall determining factor during the 2017 season, the Philadelphia Eagles would not even be eligible to compete for the Super Bowl.

Given their dominance during the regular season through the playoffs, the New England Patriots should have been declared the winner of Super Bowl LII because they won the total yardage tally in a record-breaking effort.

Despite the effort, the Philadelphia Eagles were awarded the Lombardi trophy because they scored more total points than the Patriots and as total points was the formally accepted determining factor on who wins football games, the final score was accepted by both teams and the New England region is not in full #resist mode, contesting the outcome of a Super Bowl and trying to undo the results.

Going into the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton and Trump campaigns understood and ran on the established rules that determine who wins the presidency: which campaign won the Electoral College (total points) and NOT who received more popular votes (total yardage).

Overview of the Presidential Election Process
During the general election, Americans head to the polls to cast their vote for President. But the tally of those votes—the popular vote—does not determine the winner. Instead, Presidential elections use the Electoral College. To win the election, a candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes.

This was simply explained as logical by liberal Democrats for Democrats in 2008….

The New England Patriots organization and their fans nationwide would be roundly (and justifiably) ridiculed had they taken to the mics during the post-game press conference and whined that they really won the game because they broke the all-time Super Bowl record for total yardage. It would be even more damning to their reputation if they mobilized fans across the country to #resist the results and question the legitimacy of the Philadelphia Eagles as the duly victorious on the field.

The sanity of Patriots nation would also be questioned, especially if the sports media also went along with the sore-loser narrative, attempted to create a divide between Philadelphia and the rest of the nation, and even repeated an unproven storyline that the Patriots cheated because they somehow colluded with the Canadian Football League in rigging the game.

During the last couple of weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump observed the established rules and campaigned heavily in states needed to win the game. Unlike Hillary who maybe had one or two appearances every day or so, Trump appeared in four to six events per day. At the end of November 8, 2016, Donald Trump scored more points than Hillary, yet her supporters are still trying to make the case they really won because they got more yards.

If short sighted Democrats manage to get their way and change our election process to the popular vote, both sides know the new rules and if the Democrat loses the popular vote, suddenly discovers the wisdom of the Founders and their reasoning for creating the Electoral College process, they’ll DEMAND we go back to that very well thought out (albeit “antiquated”) system.

That’ll be as logical as the National Football League changing the rules so total points are no longer the determining factor on who wins a game.

But for many of us who’ve been politically aware before 2008, judges overruling the will of the people is nothing new, in fact it’s a tried-and-true, expected liberal reaction to anything they don’t like, so let’s go a few years back and you’ll see the pattern.

1994: Proposition 187

There actually came a time in the great state of California where the residents had enough of the Mexican illegal immigration-invasion, specifically the fiscal, social costs and crime ramifications taxpayers are forced to endure, and the topic was put to statewide referendum.

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum in November 1994.
— Wikipedia

Using the most direct optics as a gauge, one would think the proposition lacked support, as one mostly saw anti-187 bumper stickers everywhere. However that may have been because the few cars that did display “Yes on 187” stickers were vandalized to varying degrees. That looming threat to personal property had a visually chilling effect but it appears to also have galvanized and certified the resolve of those who were tired of living in the illegal Mexican culture.

This is NOT anecdotal. I lived in the San Fernando Valley during the 90s and witnessed this first hand.

Proposition 187 passed. The “will of the people” was heard, liberals didn’t like the result, so guess what happened? They found a judge to proudly nullify near nine million voices.

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill’s passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren. After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

Ironic considering how liberal judges in Washington state today are infringing on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

2008: Proposition 8

Prior to events in Massachusetts, EVERY state that held a referendum on gay marriage voted against it and by healthy margins. The left, however, believed the popular vote was NOT a good barometer of public sentiment that should be respected and when such a referendum was offered in California, it was time to pounce again.

Prop 8, officially titled Proposition 8 – Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, was a statewide ballot proposition in California. On November 4, 2008, voters approved the measure and made same-sex marriage illegal in California.
— Ballotpedia

There were protests, many aimed at religious institutions that campaigned for the initiative, and this could also have been the birth of public shaming now widely used by what we now call the “gaystapo”, as those who donated to groups who campaigned for the initiative were outed, and many lost jobs and businesses as a result.

Of course, all it took was a friendly liberal judge and court to overturn the will of over seven million voters.

The proposition was almost immediately challenged and ultimately overruled by the Ninth Circuit and the opinion written by a proven liberal judge who just happened to be married to the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. But we all know that had absolutely NO influence on his independence as a federal judge because liberals and their integrity are beyond reproach….

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.
— Wikipedia

By the way, blacks overwhelming voted against Prop 8 and as a result, gay racism became justified thus publicly acceptable.

In two very notable initiatives, the same liberals who decry the election of Donald J. Trump because they claim the popular vote was ignored in favor of an antiquated Electoral College, have used the courts to blow off the popular vote on numerous occasions when it didn’t go their way. Sometimes they observe the jurisdiction of the federal government and sometimes they don’t.

With that, it’s no wonder they’re freaking out. The world they’ve mandated us to live under is being torn apart, they’re technically powerless to stop it, so let’s not act like what’s going on now with the judicial obstruction to President Trump’s “extreme vetting” of refugees attempting entry into the United States is unprecedented.

The only obstruction club they have left are the judges, for now….