Posted on 11/27/2020 1:09:41 PM PST by gattaca
The evidence brought up at the PA hearing was good, but was it included in this case? Can it be added? Making a legal complaint isn’t like making an argument on FR, you can’t just keep throwing stuff up there.
There's way more than that.
I am the antidote to hopium.
What the hell is up with the wording of these decisions?
They are basically saying “The evidence of fraud you presented is not evidence of fraud”
No, you are opiod overdose. No rational balance at all— and mostly disinformation. Perhaps your purpose. No matter- you are completely wrong.
I don't think that's the way SCOTUS operates. I have heard that they only review what evidence has already been submitted and ruled on by lower courts, No NEW evidence accepted, according to what I've read.
And when the next lower court says that NO evidence was presented to even rule on, that status PREVENTS the issue from ever being seen by the Supremes, eh?
“This moron doesn’t even know what form of government we are.”
He was a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League School. The Ivy League law schools teach the “living Constitution” which allows judges considerable freedom to interpret what the Constitution should mean in the current era instead of what the language of the Constitution says (i.e. original intent). The living Constitution advocates essentially ignore the amendment process which does allow the Constitution to be modified. Of course the amendment process is difficult and requires supermajorities. It also allows the states to be the final ratifiers of amendments not Congress.
It is interesting the Constitution gives the courts no role in amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court, and the lower federal courts, have taken that power on themselves, with the acquiescence of the legislative and executive branches as well as the states.
And they won't, and will hopefully reverse Bush v. Gore, which was a Constitutional abomination, at the same time.
“Then they bring out everything they have”
That’s not the way the SC works. The SC will only consider evidence that is in the record. The time to bring out everything they have is in the lower courts in order to build the record....
I am a lawyer with decades of experience, much of it in Fed Court. I think the 3rd Circuit ruled correctly, based on the narrow question put in front of it.
It is an axiom that Federal courts MUST rule on the actual, narrow, case and controversy in front of them. They cannot go outside of what is put before them. Otherwise, they would not be adjudicating a dispute, they would be making law, which the Constitution reserves to Congress, not judiciary.
The fact that the Republican-appointed judges adhered to this important principle is an indication that they are honorable jurists.
The blame lies with Giuliani, not with the judges.
I wrote on it extensively here. Scroll down to 203. You can scroll down further to see my recommendation on “what’s next?”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3910068/posts?page=203#203
“But Giuliani offered little tangible evidence to fortify his claims.”
Rudy had lots of evidence at the PA Senate hearing. Are we supposed to believe he didn’t present any to the appeals court?
BS.
but it it was a motion to dismiss then the presumption is that the non-moving party’s evidence is all true.
so in granting the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s evidence (Trump) is all true for the purpose of the motion.
The appeals court are Democrats. They are corrupt and won’t rule in Trump’s favor.
Doing us a favor by getting it there sooner rather than later.
Correct me if I’m wrong- are saying the judges did NOT address the crux of the suit? I’ve not read it, but your description seems something the judges should have at least checked into.
That’s true but the question is is it sufficient...again the place to bring everything you have is in the lower Courts not the SC. They will not consider anything outside of the record....
If Giuliani made a mess of it, it is not the judges fault for doing their jobs.
No, he can't add new evidence before SCOTUS that wasn't presented to the court below. And the Pennsylvania court case had none of the fraud claims that Rudy talked about before the legislators; Rudy even stated on the record "this is not a fraud case."
Am I missing something?
Is Rudy not presenting convincing evidence or are the judged afraid to rule on this explosive case?
*********
My guess is that Democrat oriented courts are putting an impossible burden of proof on plaintiffs challenging a corrupt process, by making the victims of cheating prove that they would have won if there had been no cheating. If there were, say, 500,000 suspiciously dumped ballots that could not be verified as genuine, i.e., no chain of custody, all for Biden, the plaintiff would have to prove that enough of them were forged to change the result.
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.