If you have the power and opportunity to change a wrong, but do nothing, then you're as culpable as whoever caused the wrong in the first place.
In this case we're proving that a wrong occurred by attempting to get retribution for the alleged wrong - whoever is targeted (be they Rep. Dem. Lib.) is inconsequential for the general public, aside from adjusting voting patterns in the future.
Once the suit determines culpability, we can find ways to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place.
If what you say is true, then every single second of every single day that I'm not spending my time maximizing my benefit to society and others, I'm living in... well, "sin" or whatever moral bad state you would like to call it.
You may choose to live like that, but I prefer to judge myself in a way that doesn't make literally everything I do an immoral act.
We're all selfish and make decisions in our best interest (our families' and close ones' interests _are_ our own) - whether or not you look at those selfish decisions as a "sin" isn't a distinction I've made or intend to.
Okay, but what you said was that any time we don't act and can act we are operating "in sin", which leads to the conclusion that if we don't always act in the most optimal way for society, we're acting in sin.
So even if you didn't intend to, you just made all selfish acts sinful.
In this case we're proving that a wrong occurred by attempting to get retribution for the alleged wrong - whoever is targeted (be they Rep. Dem. Lib.) is inconsequential for the general public, aside from adjusting voting patterns in the future.
Once the suit determines culpability, we can find ways to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place.