Courts are often dishonest and unreliable in political cases. That was the experience of GW Bush in 2000, and of virtually all lawyers in political cases.
Every single court? Fed Courts? State courts? Trial courts? Appeal courts? Supreme Courts? In 5 different states? Every SINGLE COURT?
Maybe, just maybe, if you file garbage with the courts, and your pleadings are littered with spelling errors, geography errors, incorrect legal citations, hearsay, affidavits lacking foundation, and experimental pleadings that violate our Federalist systems, and you file garbage without authorization from your “client” and you file garbage in the wrong courts, and you don’t timely file papers, and you dismiss key allegations, and you walk into a court where you are not licensed to practice law, and speak gibberish, and you get shot down by 100% of the courts that review your garbage, then maybe, just maybe, the fault lies with the lawyers, not the judges?
Bush ultimately got a just verdict in 2000, BTW.
I will try to lay out one of Giuliani’s humiliating defeats. I will try to do it in simple terms, and without legalese. I hope I am successful.
In PA, PDJT filed a lawsuit in Fed Court, asking that 300K votes be tossed due to legal technicalities. The allegation was that the way the vote by mail law was passed did not conform to a clause in PA Constitution. There was also a separate allegation of fraud.
Giuliani is not licensed in PA. He got special permission for just that one case. He had the fraud allegation dismissed.
In court, he filed a motion to toss the votes, and went in to argue. Remember, he was not licensed there, and had not been inside a courthouse this century. So, already, people should have been worried.
Now, when a litigant attacks state action on Constitutional grounds, there are three different tests, depending on the nature of the state act and the nature of the challenge.
If the litigant alleges infringement of key Constitutional rights, the test that applies is “strict scrutiny.” It is very difficult for the state action to pass this test.
The next tier is “intermediate scrutiny.”
The lowest tier is “rational relationship.” It is easy for state acts to pass this test.
The judge asked Giuliani which tests he thinks should be applied to the facts.
Giuliani did not know these standards. So he tried to distract the judge by arguing about the standard on a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.
But that was not what the judge was asking. He was not asking what was the standard for dismissing the lawsuit. He was asking what was the standard for granting his motion.
This is just one example. How can you file a motion to toss 300K votes on Constitutional grounds, then walk into court to argue your motion, and not even know the tests for Constitutionality of state acts? What a bozo. He was way out of his league.
Simply put, this clown troop posing as attorneys have accomplished ZERO for PDJT and his supporters. And their attempts to blame judges is manipulatively dishonest and immoral.