[truthkeeper]

I just saw the following article on this matter. I'm hoping some of legal people can shed some light the analyses. Way over my head:

Link text

[Hostage]

It’s a legal blog riddled with ranting biased Democrat bar losers. It’s partisan for pete’s sake.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I just saw the following article on this matter. I'm hoping some of legal people can shed some light the analyses. Way over my head.

They're right that this was sloppy lawyering by Rudy. The trial judge did three separate things: (1) he dismissed the complaint, (2) he denied an injunction against certifying the vote, and (3) he denied Rudy's motion to file a new version of the Complaint. Rudy has asked for, and been granted, an immediate appeal only of issue number 3. That means that, even if he wins, all he gets is to go back to the trial judge and start over with a new complaint.

In other words, even if he wins this expedited appeal, there will still be no injunction against certifying the votes. Without even a pending request for an injunction, there is nothing Rudy can take up to SCOTUS.

[Semper Vigilantis]

Dan Abrams - Sr Legal Consultant for ABC ‘News’ - is the founder/publisher of that site. Biased lefty garbage.