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

Skip to comments.

Michigan Supreme Court denies Stein’s recount appeal
The Detroit News | December 9, 2016 | Jonathan Oosting

Posted on 12/09/2016 2:59:05 PM PST by bobsunshine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last
To: bobsunshine
"In a 3-2 ruling, the state’s highest court said the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Stein was ineligible to pursue a recount."

Two SCMI Justices are wimps and should no longer be considered for appointment to SCOTUS.

41 posted on 12/09/2016 3:44:21 PM PST by Paladin2 (No spellcheck. It's too much work to undo the auto wrong word substitution on mobile devices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

Interesting. Two Libtards are delusional. They are incompetent jurists and need to resign.


42 posted on 12/09/2016 3:46:30 PM PST by Paladin2 (No spellcheck. It's too much work to undo the auto wrong word substitution on mobile devices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Thanks for the link. Short - and sweet.


43 posted on 12/09/2016 3:48:11 PM PST by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of infants, ruled by their emotion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Maybe the lawyers here on FR can chime in, but I don't think the Federal courts can hear an appeal of a state court ruling.

An appeal from the Michigan Supreme Court would have to be to SCOTUS, which would decide whether to hear it.

44 posted on 12/09/2016 3:50:31 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/appeals

“A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a “writ of certiorari,” which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html

The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law

The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000

The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices’ Interests:

The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions

Of the four issues above, the only one that matches up is the election case point. But, because she cannot actually win, they will toss it back. If Hilary had filed, they might have looked at it. But Stein can not possibly win and due to precidence along with not trying to look stupid, they will toss it.

red


45 posted on 12/09/2016 3:50:39 PM PST by Redwood71 (ualified on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Two SCMI Justices are wimps and should no longer be considered for appointment to SCOTUS.

I wouldn't say that. The decision didn't need their input overall, and they'll look a lot better as future candidates for the USSC if they didn't show what the left would consider partisanship in this important case. (it shouldn't be an important case, but it is).

46 posted on 12/09/2016 3:53:24 PM PST by meyer (There is no political solution to this troubling evolution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

I hope Stein is back in four years with a much stronger showing at the polls. I just wish she’d go away until then.


47 posted on 12/09/2016 3:55:15 PM PST by Preachin' (I stand with many voters who will never vote for a pro abortion candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican

how many disloyal Electors? Maybe 5?

What are the odds that Trump falls below 300 in the final vote counted in JAN?

The 13th of DEC is very near ...


48 posted on 12/09/2016 3:56:28 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT (i WANNA HEAR MORE GLOATING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty

Yes. Till he is sworn in this is never over and we need to stay on it


49 posted on 12/09/2016 4:00:15 PM PST by Jimmy The Snake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

I don’t know if she can successfully. She has set Michigan back twelve million dollars. For Nothing.


50 posted on 12/09/2016 4:02:02 PM PST by SisterK (its a spiritual war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

She’s once, twice, three times a loser.


51 posted on 12/09/2016 4:02:08 PM PST by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

I don’t think she gets a refund. Michigan lost $12million.


52 posted on 12/09/2016 4:03:32 PM PST by SisterK (its a spiritual war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

and, Jill, take Hillary with you ....


53 posted on 12/09/2016 4:04:28 PM PST by nevermorelenore ( I miss Reagan !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Make it a double.


54 posted on 12/09/2016 4:06:24 PM PST by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: toddausauras
Hard to believe how badly the recount failed

Failed?

Jill Stein can tell you about the 7 million ways it succeeded.

55 posted on 12/09/2016 4:14:11 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: absinthe

“President-Elect Trump”
“The most salient words in the decision.”

Oh, I loved the way they didn’t shy away from that title. Just beautiful. I want to keep hearing it over and over and over again till January 20, 2017!! Especially from the mouths of #NeverTrumpers and Progressives.


56 posted on 12/09/2016 4:15:34 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

” “This is now going to affect every other recount going forward.””

yeah, Brewer, your string of losses has established a string of great precedents against frivolous recounts being staged for no other reason than as publicity stunts.

You’ve inadvertently done good work here after all, and the millions ostensibly donated by hundreds of thousands of snowflakes has turned out to have been donated for a worthy cause.


57 posted on 12/09/2016 4:17:01 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Jill, send your lawyers to the ICC. I’m sure you’ll have a shot there!


58 posted on 12/09/2016 4:20:57 PM PST by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

“Stein’s next step might be to the Federal 6 Circuit. “

yeah, but they would have to start from scratch on a brand new claim, and it would have to be something along the lines that the whole MI state recount law is unconstitutional.

Stein has run out of time in Michigan given that the 13th is the final cert date (which Michigan has actually already done anyway), so it’s VERY unlikely Stein will attempt to initiate a complex (and lengthy - like years) Federal lawsuit in the 6th alleging that Michigan’s election law is unconstitutional.


59 posted on 12/09/2016 4:21:52 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
"Two SCMI Justices are wimps and should no longer be considered for appointment to SCOTUS. "

Wimps?  Beg your pardon, these justices recused themselves from this decision as they were on a short list named by Trump of justices to replace Justice Scalia even before the election.

These two justices also just won a state-wide election making the court a 5-2 conservative majority, even after taking themselves out of the decision - and they still knew the court would have 3-2 republican advantage.

Voting in this decision would be a direct conflict of interest as any judge with integrity would do that was on a short list as a SCOTUS nominee, unlike Sotomayer and Kagan should have done in previous cases.

60 posted on 12/09/2016 4:23:55 PM PST by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 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