He was not wrong, the poster Lurking Libertarian was wrong. The failure to counter appeal argument was addressed to the fact that Robertson had found that he had jurisdiction, which necessarily means that he accepted that the plaintiff had standing, not to the reasons for his dismissal. The Perkins Coie lawyers did not appeal his finding that jurisdiction and standing existed before he dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for what he found to be a failure to state a claim.
I agree Robertson's acceptance of jurisdiction is a great step forward. I agree that this relates to standing of the plaintiffs. But, I also fear that it will limit the case to procedural, rather than substantive matters.
I am really afraid that they will agree to the plaintiff's standing, but uphold the dismissal for failure to state a claim.Awaiting (with trepidation)to hear what this panel says.
In reThe electors are partisans to begin with, they dont decide anything.
It continues to astound me that no Elector did not at least put forth the question. It amazed me even more that VP Cheney, as President of the College of Electors, did not make even the pro forma request for any objections.
No, you're wrong. A cross-appeal is necessary in federal court if the party who won below wants the appellate court to grant him more relief than the trial court did. (For example, if the trial court dismissed without prejudice, and the defendant thinks the dismissal should have been with prejudice, the defendant must cross-appeal.) A cross-appeal is not necessary if the defendant is happy with the result, but thinks the trial court should have reached that result through different reasoning.
Here, the result was the dismissal of the case. The defendants can defend that result on any ground, including grounds not relied on by the district judge. Thus, they can argue that dismissal was proper because the court had no jurisdiction, because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction wouldn't give them any greater relief than dismissal for failure to state a claim.