The election litigation thread

[Dutch Oven]

You don't think those 40+ judges could figure out all this for themselves, Dutch?

I mean, how could ALL those judges get it all so wrong? Doesn't make sense, does it? Are they all just scaredy-woos?

You think Hugo Chavez is involved?

And when is Trump going to get his case to the Supreme Court? That's where the "courage" judges are, right? The lesser judges are just scuttling rodents of judicial fear.

Don't ask me questions and then ignore my answers. That will just lead to me ignoring your questions.

But, yes, in my view, the only court that Trump has any hope of victory is SCOTUS.

 

[Paradigm Shift]

Certification of the results, as GA is about to do for a second time, is irrelevant is what you are saying? Even before votes were cast, Donald Trump said the only way he would lose is if the election was rigged. So it was obvious he was never going to concede and therefore using concession as a basis for president-elect designation was off the table. Any objective individual would be obliged to look for a legitimate alternative - and certification is that.

The final determination of how a state sends it's representatives to the Electoral College, is up to the State Legislature. It is spelled out in the US Constitution.

 

[Paradigm Shift]

.... So it was obvious he was never going to concede and therefore using concession as a basis for president-elect designation was off the table.

Then, the ONLY way Biden can will is through the Electoral College vote.

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you under the same delusion as Frank? Do you understand my posts on this thread to be about my analysis of whether the decisions rendered are correct, or not? A real lawyer knows better than to read things into posts that aren't there. The few times I've posted about legal principles (in general) was for the benefit of some posters who were playing football without knowing any of the rules or even what the ball looked like.

I have read Judge Parker's decision, and while I can see how her opinion could be challenged, why not just wait for actual appeal briefs to be filed? Once they are, you can then sharpen your teeth on the bones of the actual arguments being persued.

Or is this your idea of a bar exam? LOL!

As to the "how can so many judges get something wrong", that is, of course. the entire history of the law that precedes just about every legal development. The circumstances of this election are ripe for such development. Take, as a small example, Judge Parker's comments about laches. While the principle is easy enough to state, don't you think the application of it requires recognition of the unique circumstances of this election and the uniqueness of the conduct being complained about? When could you possibly file suit sooner based on some of the election irregularities identified? Certainly not before witnesses came forward to tell you what happened to them. How do you analyze statistical irregularities before the counting and reporting is complete (and how long did Michigan take to finally complete its count)? How strictly do you apply laches (an equitable principle) in favour of a defendant who is alleged to have concealed some of the conduct complained of? These are unique considerations that don't fit neatly into the precedent the court determined to apply. While I think the outcomes of these cases are difficult to predict, it is circumstances like this which historically drive refinements in the law.

The way legal precedent operates, it's a lot easier to accumulate many wrong decisions than it is to produce a single right decision that herds the legal cattle back into the corral Bush uniformly lost in the lower courts before ultimately succeeding on appeal. I'm not shocked at the rulings in the lower courts. I've said as much in an earlier post. It takes a lot of courage to up-end an election, and courage is not a strong suit of most judges. (By contrast, you need at least a little courage to run for office.)

42 times your claims have been tested in court and 42 times they have failed yet you call me delusional.
Judges make decisions based on evidence, not 'theory of law or fact that appear rational'.

Tomorrow is safe harbour day, Rudy is in the hospital and after a series of totally embarrassing rulings the legal campaign is pretty much done.
Hoping for a SC hail Mary pass is delusional.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1335997223654600710

 

[Paradigm Shift]

None of these shitpile cases are going to get within a mile of the USSC.

You need leave to appeal and these are bullshit cases.

We should know this week.
Attorney Representing GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell Asks US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Mail-In Voting

Attorney Representing GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell Asks US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Pennsylvania's Mail-In Voting | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday evening reversed a lower court’s block on certifying the state’s elections issued Friday night, dismissing with prejudice a lawsuit brought by Republican candidates for the U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Justice Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing in Pennsylvania Lawsuit to Flip the Election

Justice Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing in Pennsylvania Lawsuit to Flip the Election | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito; screen image The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last Saturday evening reversed a lower court’s block on certifying the state’s elections issued Friday night, dismissing with prejudice a lawsuit brought by Republican candidates for the U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Frankfooter]

Then, the ONLY way Biden can will is through the Electoral College vote.

Biden won the popular vote and as many EC votes as Trump when he declared he won in a landslide.
You sound delusional.

 

[Dutch Oven]

42 times your claims have been tested in court and 42 times they have failed yet you call me delusional.
Judges make decisions based on evidence, not 'theory of law or fact that appear rational'.

Tomorrow is safe harbour day, Rudy is in the hospital and after a series of totally embarrassing rulings the legal campaign is pretty much done.
Hoping for a SC hail Mary pass is delusional.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1335997223654600710

S

 

[Fun For All]

There is a difference. Hillary Clinton conceded when she saw the obvious Trump victory.
There are only 2 ways to become President-elect in the US: either when the electoral college votes, or if the other candidate concedes.
You may recall that Hillary Clinton made a public statement before the election that Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.
And, since there are only 2 ways to become President-elect, it doesn't matter what the networks call.

There is nothing in the constitution that says "There are only 2 ways to become President-elect in the US: either when the electoral college votes, or if the other candidate concedes."

President-elect of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Paradigm Shift]

There is nothing in the constitution that says "There are only 2 ways to become President-elect in the US: either when the electoral college votes, or if the other candidate concedes."

President-elect of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Constitution enumerates the one way of election by the Electoral College, the concession is given by the person conceding. The state legislatures ultimately decide who to send to the Electoral College.
Even in the case of concession, the Electoral College still meets.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution directs each state to appoint a quantity of electors equal to that state's congressional delegation (members of the House of Representatives plus two Senators). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state's electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential election day on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,[13] each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws.

In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate the winner of the plurality of its statewide popular vote shall receive all of that state's electors;[14] in Maine and Nebraska, two electors are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electors are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts.[15] The federal district, Washington, D.C., allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winning ticket; to avoid faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors’ pledge.[16]

The electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes.[14] The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.[14][17] Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states; the Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.[18] The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.

 

[Paradigm Shift]

Biden won the popular vote and as many EC votes as Trump when he declared he won in a landslide.
You sound delusional.

Popular votes mean nothing in a Democratic Republic. What matters is the number of Electoral College votes.

 

[Paradigm Shift]

The 2019 election law that allowed no-excuse mail-in balloting was passed by a Republican controlled legislature. Plaintiff is asking 2.5 million voters to be disenfranchised for voting under that law. If you think it has any chance of being granted, then you have your head buried so far deep your ass you are smelling noxious fumes.

The law in Pennsylvania is very specific. What any of us thinks is irrelevant. The Supreme Court will either take the case, or they won't. Let's see what happens.

 

[Frankfooter]

The Constitution enumerates the one way of election by the Electoral College, the concession is given by the person conceding. The state legislatures ultimately decide who to send to the Electoral College.
Even in the case of concession, the Electoral College still meets.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution directs each state to appoint a quantity of electors equal to that state's congressional delegation (members of the House of Representatives plus two Senators). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state's electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from being named electors. Following the national presidential election day on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November,[13] each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws.

In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate the winner of the plurality of its statewide popular vote shall receive all of that state's electors;[14] in Maine and Nebraska, two electors are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electors are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts.[15] The federal district, Washington, D.C., allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state's winning ticket; to avoid faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors’ pledge.[16]

The electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December to cast their votes.[14] The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, as president of the Senate.[14][17] Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states; the Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote.[18] The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20.

Nothing about concession in there at all. Its irrelevant.
Its all based on the popular vote in states dictating the electors that vote on their behalf for president.
Biden won a landslide's worth of EC votes.

 

[Frankfooter]

But, yes, in my view, the only court that Trump has any hope of victory is SCOTUS.

You are delusional.

Former American Bar Association Presidents, 1,000-Plus Lawyers Call for Bar Investigations of Trump Campaign Attorneys

 

[Frankfooter]

We should know this week.
Attorney Representing GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell Asks US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Mail-In Voting

Attorney Representing GOP Rep. Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell Asks US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Pennsylvania's Mail-In Voting | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday evening reversed a lower court’s block on certifying the state’s elections issued Friday night, dismissing with prejudice a lawsuit brought by Republican candidates for the U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Even republicans don't want that taken to the SC.
Republicans File Brief Opposing Pro-Trump Congressman’s Pa. Election Suit, Implore Alito Not to Give Democrats a Future Win

Republicans File Brief Opposing Pro-Trump Congressman’s Pa. Election Suit, Implore Alito Not to Give Democrats a Future Win

A coalition of Republican politicians and attorneys who have worked in Republican federal administrations asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to reject Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly’s challenge to the commonwealth’s election results, arguing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly...

lawandcrime.com

 

[kherg007]

The majority of the Republican party s abetting through their silence?
President Trump has a right, under the US Constitution to contest the results, as he is doing. The people who are remaining silent are neither supporting, nor condemning that right; that is what they are supposed to be doing.

With all due respect...If you look at the Georgia laws, there are procedures. The election is certified. Thus DJT is doing extralegal efforts to overturn an election. Calling a governor to get him to call a special session to appoint a pro-Trump slate of electors? Extra legal. He is not pursuing his legal right. The law in georgia is clear - since the 1960s...popular vote determines the electors. And, the law says a special session to appoint different electors after the election is certified is not permissible. Thus trump is asking georgia to go outside their state law - extralegal - to ignore the popular vote and declare him the winner.
This is based on charges with no evidence behind them. Thus not his "right". Not a legal recourse.

 

[shack]

Popular votes mean nothing in a Democratic Republic. What matters is the number of Electoral College votes.

How many Democratic Republics are there in the world? Do they all have Electoral Colleges? Just asking.

 

[mandrill]

Don't ask me questions and then ignore my answers. That will just lead to me ignoring your questions.

But, yes, in my view, the only court that Trump has any hope of victory is SCOTUS.

Dutch, your guys and their "legal arguments" are 0-45 or something like that before a number of Superior and appellate courts in several states. If Team Trump wins an appearance, I'll bother reading your arguments. Until then, I'll let the judges do the work. They get paid for it.

Losers don't get their posts read, Dutch. It's a hard world, but there you go.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Losers don't get their posts read, Dutch. It's a hard world, but there you go.

I agree.

 

[toguy5252]

Are you under the same delusion as Frank? Do you understand my posts on this thread to be about my analysis of whether the decisions rendered are correct, or not? A real lawyer knows better than to read things into posts that aren't there. The few times I've posted about legal principles (in general) was for the benefit of some posters who were playing football without knowing any of the rules or even what the ball looked like.

I have read Judge Parker's decision, and while I can see how her opinion could be challenged, why not just wait for actual appeal briefs to be filed? Once they are, you can then sharpen your teeth on the bones of the actual arguments being persued.

Or is this your idea of a bar exam? LOL!

As to the "how can so many judges get something wrong", that is, of course. the entire history of the law that precedes just about every legal development. The circumstances of this election are ripe for such development. Take, as a small example, Judge Parker's comments about laches. While the principle is easy enough to state, don't you think the application of it requires recognition of the unique circumstances of this election and the uniqueness of the conduct being complained about? When could you possibly file suit sooner based on some of the election irregularities identified? Certainly not before witnesses came forward to tell you what happened to them. How do you analyze statistical irregularities before the counting and reporting is complete (and how long did Michigan take to finally complete its count)? How strictly do you apply laches (an equitable principle) in favour of a defendant who is alleged to have concealed some of the conduct complained of? These are unique considerations that don't fit neatly into the precedent the court determined to apply. While I think the outcomes of these cases are difficult to predict, it is circumstances like this which historically drive refinements in the law.

The way legal precedent operates, it's a lot easier to accumulate many wrong decisions than it is to produce a single right decision that herds the legal cattle back into the corral. Bush uniformly lost in the lower courts before ultimately succeeding on appeal. I'm not shocked at the rulings in the lower courts. I've said as much in an earlier post. It takes a lot of courage to up-end an election, and courage is not a strong suit of most judges. (By contrast, you need at least a little courage to run for office.)

A sensible post. Having read Judge Parkers decision have you now seen any compelling admissible evidence which in your mind at least would render her decision wrong?

And by the way multiple appeal courts have already made decisions, none which have been favorable to the soon the be former autocrat in chief.

 

[Fun For All]

Another loss in Penn...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-pennsylvania-election-results/2020/12/08/4d39e16c-397d-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html