The election litigation thread

[Fun For All]

The complexity of all this litigation seems to bother you. Maybe you should take a break from it.

I understand everything except you.

 

[Dutch Oven]

it's good that we have you to walk us through it!

That's not what I'm here to do. I'm quite selective about when I'll provide explanation to wayward posters. Feel free to save me the trouble.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I understand everything except you.

Then I guess you understood that what I said about the small significance of the ruling today was true. Didn't you think the poster who didn't know that deserved that information?

If an exchange between other posters doesn't interest you, because you already know the information that's being shared, why post in response?

 

[Fun For All]

Then I guess you understood that what I said about the small significance of the ruling today was true. Didn't you think the poster who didn't know that deserved that information?

If an exchange between other posters doesn't interest you, because you already know the information that's being shared, why post in response?

You are annoying...

 

[Leimonis]

Then I guess you understood that what I said about the small significance of the ruling today was true.

Maybe it was hard to give a significant ruling because of the small significance of the frivolous claim?

 

[basketcase]

That’s not fair...this is a pretty tough case for Jenna Ellis to win.

Most legit lawyers would be up front and tell the client they are very unlikely to win and the suit is a waste of money.

On the other hand, ambulance chasers are just interested in a payday.

 

[Fun For All]

Most legit lawyers would be up front and tell the client they are very unlikely to win and the suit is a waste of money.

Maybe they did...after today they are 1-34...I’m sure they all realize that turning over an election is going to be difficult.

 

[basketcase]

Maybe they did...after today they are 1-34...I’m sure they all realize that turning over an election is going to be difficult.

Especially when there is no evidence. I wonder of the bar has rules about lawyers taking money from mentally unstable people for cases they can't win.

 

[Leimonis]

Maybe they did...after today they are 1-34...

here is the actual picture of president trump in 𝚕̶𝚊̶𝚋̶𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚛̶ litigation giving birth to a mouse while being assisted by pence and giuliani

 

[Fun For All]

Especially when there is no evidence. I wonder of the bar has rules about lawyers taking money from mentally unstable people for cases they can't win.

The most sadistic people who have committed the most heinous of crimes, pick any one you want, have all had legal representation to speak for them...even Potato Head.

 

[Perry Mason]

You wax very romantically about the law. Such posts entertain me.

I guess when it comes to entertainment value, we have a mutual admiration for each other!

Perry

 

[Fun For All]

I guess when it comes to entertainment value, we have a mutual admiration for each other!

Perry

I think he's a pain in the ass...he takes a simple issue and writes a lengthy reply based on conspiracy aimed to complicate and confuse for no reasonable conclusion.

 

[Frankfooter]

George Conway - world's worst husband and most bitter anti-trumper on the planet (he's a woman scorned and all). Somehow, I find the prospect of following him anywhere to be unappealling and unwise.

Did the judges really laugh? It seems unlikely. Very poor judicial conduct if it were true.

There are so many cases. Some of them don't deserve to be successful, in my opinion. But it matters not, because only certain of these cases matter, and only their final disposition at their final level of appeal really matters.

I'll be shocked if ANY trial level judge has the stones to overturn a state wide presidential election, no matter what the pleadings or evidence. The task at hand for the Trump team is really just to get their entire case on the record. Even if they were to win at trial level, any wins would be appealed by the DEMs.

Seems like we're in about the 5th inning. To early to call it.

If George could run the 100 yards of a football field, seems like he'd be the kind of guy who starts celebrating at the 10 and gets the ball knocked out of his hands at the 5.

You picked the wrong football metaphor.
This better represents where Trump is with his cases.

 

[Frankfooter]

The appeal that was disposed of today was on a very narrow procedural order in the course of seeking injunctive relief (denial of the request of the Trump campaign to amend the application for an injunction). That's why only 3 members of the court sat on the matter. The appeal of the lower court decision on the merits has not yet been heard. No matter, a new complaint can be filed with additional allegations and affidavits, just not in time to prevent certification in the first instance, which was the objective of the first suit.

 

[Dutch Oven]

You picked the wrong football metaphor.
This better represents where Trump is with his cases.

Bad metaphor (as usual). Yours implies that there is a valid target to hit, but Trump is simply missing it due to a combination of being too trusting and dealing with someone/people who have bad faith. You don't mean any of those things.

This scene from Peanuts isn't about Charlie Brown being incompetent. It's about Lucy taking advantage of the fact he's so trusting. Lucy is the villain in the piece.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bad metaphor (as usual). Yours implies that there is a valid target to hit, but Trump is simply missing it due to a combination of being too trusting and dealing with someone/people who have bad faith. You don't mean any of those things.

This scene from Peanuts isn't about Charlie Brown being incompetent. It's about Lucy taking advantage of the fact he's so trusting. Lucy is the villain in the piece.

You can't even interpret Peanuts correctly, why do you think you know the law better than anyone else?

 

[Dutch Oven]

You can't even interpret Peanuts correctly, why do you think you know the law better than anyone else?

I've interpreted Peanuts perfectly correctly. You, obviously, have never understood it. Peanuts is a comic that expresses sympathy for many of the challenges of childhood that make children sad (Charlie is ridiculed for getting things wrong, Linus is ridiculed for needing a security blanket and believing in myths). It tries to make people feel better by showing there is also humor in life as well as well as the possibility of redemption (Charlie chooses the right Christmas tree, despite the appearance of initial failure, Linus turns out to have many hidden talents). Perhaps you relate best to Snoopy, who symbolizes people who are completely self absorbed, to the point of living out waking fantasies (vs. the Red Baron)?

I make no claim to "knowing" (a term which isn't really apt) the law better than everyone else. I simply stand behind my statements about the law. Where they contradict the views of another poster, it's really just a comparison of their view vs. mine, not mine vs. everyone. You have the very odd idea that this forum encompasses the consensus as well the scope of all opinion on all topics. That presumption could not be further from the truth. This is a very small group which appears to predominantly (but not exclusively) attract people of one narrow mindset.

As to why I trust to my own opinions on the law, the answer lies in personal information that I would never share on an internet forum, especially a pooner hobby forum. You'll just have to deal with my opinions on their merits.

But first you need to be able to distinguish between statements of opinion that I make, and my criticisms of the certainty of other opinions that are posted. You seem to have difficulty with that distinction. Disproof of a theorem is not proof of its opposite contention.

 

[mandrill]

I watched it...I searched the internet for the name she identified herself as, Debra McClintock, and found a dentist but nobody that practices law...the credibility of that Twitter source is zero.

It's a comedy routine. It's not a "source". There is no "Debra McClintock". She's a made-up character. She's fictional. She's part of the comedy routine.

Here's some more ha-ha for you.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332720494525739010

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332501880044445705

 

[Fun For All]

It's a comedy routine. It's not a "source". There is no "Debra McClintock". She's a made-up character. She's fictional. She's part of the comedy routine.

Here's some more ha-ha for you.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332720494525739010

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1332501880044445705

Ok...well...nothing worse than comedians that aren't funny.

 

[Frankfooter]

I've interpreted Peanuts perfectly correctly. You, obviously, have never understood it. Peanuts is a comic that expresses sympathy for many of the challenges of childhood that make children sad (Charlie is ridiculed for getting things wrong, Linus is ridiculed for needing a security blanket and believing in myths). It tries to make people feel better by showing there is also humor in life as well as well as the possibility of redemption (Charlie chooses the right Christmas tree, despite the appearance of initial failure, Linus turns out to have many hidden talents). Perhaps you relate best to Snoopy, who symbolizes people who are completely self absorbed, to the point of living out waking fantasies (vs. the Red Baron)?

I make no claim to "knowing" (a term which isn't really apt) the law better than everyone else. I simply stand behind my statements about the law. Where they contradict the views of another poster, it's really just a comparison of their view vs. mine, not mine vs. everyone. You have the very odd idea that this forum encompasses the consensus as well the scope of all opinion on all topics. That presumption could not be further from the truth. This is a very small group which appears to predominantly (but not exclusively) attract people of one narrow mindset.

As to why I trust to my own opinions on the law, the answer lies in personal information that I would never share on an internet forum, especially a pooner hobby forum. You'll just have to deal with my opinions on their merits.

But first you need to be able to distinguish between statements of opinion that I make, and my criticisms of the certainty of other opinions that are posted. You seem to have difficulty with that distinction. Disproof of a theorem is not proof of its opposite contention.

Of course you think you're the resident expert on Peanuts as well as the law.
Just like Charlie Brown thinks this time he'll kick the ball.