Posted on 12/23/2020 10:26:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Lin Wood was tweeting some pretty crazy stuff tonite.
Excellent point. This was something I thought about, but did not want to go into further details because it would create a distraction.
Generally, for res judicata to apply, the decision has to be final, on the merits, and between the same parties.
So, a decision that is based on standing is not “on the merits” and therefore not res judicata.
Similarly, a decision that does not entail the same parties is not res judicata.
So, Powell and Wood never represented PDJT. But Giuliani did. So every loss by Giuliani is res judicata as to that issue.
I also wonder how courts have interpreted “same party.” If plaintiff in an action is a presidential candidate, and in another action the plaintiff is the candidate’s re-election commission, and in another action the plaintiff is the head of the party for that candidate in that state, are they deemed to be “the same party?”
I bet there is a body of law on this issue.
Take a look at the opinion in Bush v. Gore. No balancing test was applied there because Florida’s ad hoc, disparate vote counting procedures lacked any coherent justification. There was no state interest to put to the test, so the procedure could not be defended as a matter of equal protection. The judge’s line of questioning betayed both hostility toward Trump and a lack of understanding of the case law at issue.
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.