Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals court rejects Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania lawsuit, setting up Supreme Court next
Just the News ^ | November 27, 2020 | Sophie Mann

Posted on 11/27/2020 1:09:41 PM PST by gattaca

The president's campaign will continue pushing their legal fight toward the Supreme Court

The Trump 2020 campaign's legal team suffered another blow in court on Friday, as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia rejected the attorneys' effort to contest the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel that reviewed the appeal, "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."

Trump's attorneys have vowed to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, despite the round dismissal from the appeals court.

Senior strategy adviser for the Trump campaign Steve Cortes told Just the News that "We will be appealing to the United States Supreme Court, which has always been where we wanted to end up. The sooner the better. We want to make these cases before the high court and we believe we have a compelling argument to make."

The case was argued last week by President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who presented the case that the results of the election had been undermined by widespread voter fraud across Pennsylvania. But Giuliani offered little tangible evidence to fortify his claims.

All three of the judges on Friday's panel of 3rd U.S. Circuit Court judges were appointed by Republicans, including Judge Bibas who is a Trump appointee. Until 2019, President Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, sat on the court for two decades.

On Tuesday, the state of Pennsylvania certified its election results in favor of Joe Biden, who will officially receive the Keystone State's 20 electoral votes. Biden led Trump in Pennsylvania by about 80,000 votes.

Following Friday's ruling, senior Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis tweeted, "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud. On to SCOTUS!"


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1moretime; 2020; 3rdcircuit; davidbrookmansmith; dbrookssmith; divorcerudy; dubyajudge; federalistsociety; fraud; judiciary; lawsuit; matthewbrann; matthewwbrann; michaelachagares; michaelchagares; obamajudge; pennsylvania; politicaljudiciary; scotus; smackdown; stephanosbibas; supremecourt; thirdcircuit; trumpjudge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Revel

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.


61 posted on 11/27/2020 2:17:42 PM PST by Fido969 (,i.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: John S Mosby
Second post from you that is quite defeatist

There's way more than that.

I am the antidote to hopium.

62 posted on 11/27/2020 2:18:18 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: gattaca

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”


63 posted on 11/27/2020 2:18:56 PM PST by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

No, you are opiod overdose. No rational balance at all— and mostly disinformation. Perhaps your purpose. No matter- you are completely wrong.


64 posted on 11/27/2020 2:19:49 PM PST by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: glimmerman70
Then they bring out everything they have.

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?

65 posted on 11/27/2020 2:20:11 PM PST by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“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.


66 posted on 11/27/2020 2:20:12 PM PST by Soul of the South (The past is gone and cannot be changed. Tomorrow can be a better day if we work on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
SCOTUS does not have to accept the appeal

And they won't, and will hopefully reverse Bush v. Gore, which was a Constitutional abomination, at the same time.

67 posted on 11/27/2020 2:21:27 PM PST by Jim Noble (Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: glimmerman70

“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....


68 posted on 11/27/2020 2:21:56 PM PST by montanajoe ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John S Mosby; gattaca; Fido969; glimmerman70; dp0622; thinden; tired&retired; pburgh01; ...

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


69 posted on 11/27/2020 2:22:56 PM PST by God_Country_Trump_Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: gattaca

“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.


70 posted on 11/27/2020 2:24:08 PM PST by CottonBall (COVID -1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

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.


71 posted on 11/27/2020 2:24:43 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.tand http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: God_Country_Trump_Guns

You might find this interesting.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1332396462458671113.html


72 posted on 11/27/2020 2:26:02 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

The appeals court are Democrats. They are corrupt and won’t rule in Trump’s favor.


73 posted on 11/27/2020 2:27:13 PM PST by Treeless Branch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thinden

Doing us a favor by getting it there sooner rather than later.


74 posted on 11/27/2020 2:29:32 PM PST by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust the Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John S Mosby

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.


75 posted on 11/27/2020 2:29:47 PM PST by SE Mom (Screaming Eagle mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

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....


76 posted on 11/27/2020 2:31:24 PM PST by montanajoe ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: God_Country_Trump_Guns
Based on your experience, can Giuliani appeal to the USSC, expanding on the case brought to the Federal courts, or not?

If Giuliani made a mess of it, it is not the judges fault for doing their jobs.

77 posted on 11/27/2020 2:33:03 PM PST by Widget Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: glimmerman70
Can they change anything before it goes to Supreme Court or does it have to be the same case. I am sure presented the same case and evidence that he did in the Republican senate for PA. You would think that would have been enough.

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."

78 posted on 11/27/2020 2:35:41 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

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.


79 posted on 11/27/2020 2:36:45 PM PST by Socon-Econ (adical Islam, )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
This is Rudy’s lawsuit. Can someone summarize it for me?

I'll attempt to summarize. Sidney Powell should have been Trump's lead counsel to challenge the fraud that occurred in these states. Sidney is younger, more energetic, and better organized than Rudy at this point in his life.

80 posted on 11/27/2020 2:38:15 PM PST by Right_Wing_Madman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson