FReegards!
Posted on 11/27/2020 9:53:45 AM PST by Alter Kaker
Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof.
We have neither here. The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.
This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not. Most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint boil down to issues of state law. But Pennsylvania law is willing to overlook many technical defects. It favors counting votes as long as there is no fraud. Indeed, the Campaign has already litigated and lost many of these issues in state courts.
The Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory. It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court properly denied leave to amend again.
Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
Go back and check. I heard Giuliani in a press conference list the fraud and the Constitutional issues of equal protection.
We may be thinking different lawsuits but for sure Rudy had his team build in constitutional issues because they knew that all would end up there.
Otherwise you think POTUS’s team of lawyers are stupid and it would be mighty stupid of you to think that which given the low caliber of some posters on FR would not be surprising.
The Supreme Court does not have primary jurisdiction on this question (there are very few issues in which it does have primary jurisdiction).SCOTUS can do anything SCOTUS wants to do. Bush v. Gore went to SCOTUS directly without lower U.S. court review.
There are several other lawsuits out there, including at least one in Pennsylvania State Court.
But the one that Rudy botched was the best one because (1) it was in Fed Court, so it could be reviewed by SCOTUS, and (2) it was in the state with the most contested electoral votes.
Since the Third Circuit Court of appeals (correctly, in my opinion) ruled against Rudy, the best tactic is probably to file a brand new lawsuit in Fed Court in PA, but with different litigants. If it is the same litigants, it will be summarily dismissed under “Res Judicata” (a Latin phrase that simply means “the issue has already been decided”) The new lawsuit should allege pages and pages of facts, identify the witnesses and what they saw, and not be afraid to allege outright fraud.
I have exactly ZERO trust that Rudy can handle such a lawsuit, given that (1) he is not even licensed to practice in PA and (2) as DJT’s personal attorney, he should have been preparing for this litigation as early as August. But he is clearly caught off guard.
Aren’t you the expert?
I’ll bet you like to piss with the crowd that bet Wednesday night Sidney Powell would never file a damn thing, that all she wanted was a book deal.
Back to the troll farm with you!
If he had argued that 81,000 votes were counted fraudulently he could have won this case in Pennsylvania, but he didn't argue that ANY votes were fraudulent. In fact he made clear he wasn't alleging any fraud.
If he had won this case in Pennsylvania, he would still have lost the election if none of the other states switch. However at this point it seems too late to bring forward factual allegations of fraud - and his campaign is certainly not doing so. Not in Pennsylvania, not anywhere. There's what Rudy and Jenna Ellis are saying to the press and on Twitter, but there's an entirely different set of facts playing out in court.
You are incorrect. USSC is not sovereign and can or do whatever it wants.
And bush v gore was heard at the state level and had some hearing in the 11 circuit
You might be right. If that's true, it probably would make sense for DJT to file a lawsuit somewhere - anywhere! - alleging fraud. As of now, he hasn't done that. Not in PA, not in WI, not in MI, not in AZ, not in NV, not in GA.
He didn’t say there was no fraud, just that this particular argument wasn’t about fraud but about voter discrimination. I don’t know why the court even brought it up in their decision.Finally someone who gets it. This case is about equal protection and due process. Now, the decision did address that briefly but inadequately:
in proposed Count Four, it challenges giving voters notice and letting them cure ballot defects as violating equal protection. The Campaign could have disputed these practices while they were happening or during the canvassing period. Instead, it waited almost a week after Election Day to file its original complaint, almost another week to amend it, and then another three days to amend it again. Its delay is inequitable, and further delay would wreak further inequity.Bullshit. How could harm have been proved in advance? Stupid. Then this:
A violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires more than variation from county to county. It requires unequal treatment of similarly situated parties.And that's precisely what this complaint alleges. Onward beyond his dumbass court ruling.
FReegards!
You are dead wrong as a matter of fact the PA. legislator on Monday will be passing a bill to regain their power from the SOS of the state!! The PA. legislator has stated they WILL NOT let this certification pass you need to listen to Steve Bannon’s show from this AM!!! They intend to reclaim their power with a resolution bypassing the governors, veto this is in the state constitution!!! They have MORE than half of the state house AND senate on board NOT only because of this voting SCAM but because of the absolute power Wolf has perpetrated on the citizens with his out of control edits with the virus!! WE only need to STOP Biden from receiving 270 then it goes to the house WE WIN!!!
The entire court is wishy-washy! They side-stepped their duty, knowing that the issue will go to the Supreme Court allowing them to avoid the criticism that they would get for deciding against Philadelphia democrats!
Act 77 which allowed for mail-ins was passed by the PA legislature. Voter's referendum was not required beyond electing Reps and Senators in the first place. The law required all ballots to be in by 8PM Nov 3 to be counted.
Any change in that voids the law entirely and renders mail-in votes unlawful by definition. SoS and Gov and PA Supr Ct behaved unlawfully in allowing extensions of time to receive ballots (to Nov 6) and by not requiring signature verification or assured ballot custody.
Delaware County PA has lost all records of custody. If those ballots alone are rejected due to this, Trump wins PA hands down. Lot's of wheels turning here.
There are several routes of possible success for Trump in PA, and not all the cases that are filed have been filed by Trump's campaign. None of the fraud cases have been filed by Trump, only ones involving the counting of lawfully cast ballots.
FReegards!
You are incorrect. USSC is not sovereign and can or do whatever it wants.The Constitution stipulates categories of cases that require Supreme Court primary jurisdiction, but it in no way requires lower court review in all other cases.
Yep, trust Giuliani to undermine the case, saying there was no fraud.
Wrong.
It's true that IF the House of Representatives is called on to elect the President that each State gets one vote.
But before that can happen, the sealed Electoral votes have to be opened and counted by Mike Pence in the presence of the entire membership of the House and the Senate, present in Joint Session, and any objections (which could lead to the election going to the House) have to be dealt with.
This is not delineated in Article II and Amendment XII, and it led to a prolonged crisis in 1876, which caused the passage of the Electoral Vote Counting Act which has since been amended several times.
For the House to be given the responsibility of electing the President, FIRST the Vote Counting Session must rule that no one has a majority. With only two candidates, this can only happen with a 269-269 tie OR if the Congress disallows enough votes to create a no majority situation.
With the party makeup of the new Congress (270 Democrats and 265 Republicans) this is not going to happen.
Well if they are not primary jurisdiction (lawsuit between states) then the only other way is through the process of the circuit courts. It would obliterate three coequal branches if, as you contend, USSC can do “whatever it wants”
Please go read the court transcript.
“You are dead wrong as a matter of fact the PA. legislator on Monday will be passing a bill to regain their power from the SOS of the state!! “
As I understand it, some will be submitting a resolution which is different then an actual bill. And it is my understanding that the terms of the legislators in the current session expire on the 30th. The members of the next session take the oath in early January.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.