Posted on 11/27/2020 1:09:41 PM PST by gattaca
The president's campaign will continue pushing their legal fight toward the Supreme Court
The Trump 2020 campaign's legal team suffered another blow in court on Friday, as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia rejected the attorneys' effort to contest the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel that reviewed the appeal, "Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
Trump's attorneys have vowed to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, despite the round dismissal from the appeals court.
Senior strategy adviser for the Trump campaign Steve Cortes told Just the News that "We will be appealing to the United States Supreme Court, which has always been where we wanted to end up. The sooner the better. We want to make these cases before the high court and we believe we have a compelling argument to make."
The case was argued last week by President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who presented the case that the results of the election had been undermined by widespread voter fraud across Pennsylvania. But Giuliani offered little tangible evidence to fortify his claims.
All three of the judges on Friday's panel of 3rd U.S. Circuit Court judges were appointed by Republicans, including Judge Bibas who is a Trump appointee. Until 2019, President Trump's sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, sat on the court for two decades.
On Tuesday, the state of Pennsylvania certified its election results in favor of Joe Biden, who will officially receive the Keystone State's 20 electoral votes. Biden led Trump in Pennsylvania by about 80,000 votes.
Following Friday's ruling, senior Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis tweeted, "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud. On to SCOTUS!"
Thank you for your kind words.
I remain convinced, as an article of unshakable faith, that DJT’s presidency, in face of opposition from MSM, Rats, RINO Repugs, and the deep state, was impossible without divine intervention.
Up until today, I had faith that the Lord would bring about another miracle so that our glorious POTUS would serve a second term.
I now am thinking that maybe the Lord has different plans.
But I will not stop praying for DJT.
The case where Trump is far more likely to get his foot in the door to SCOTUS is Republican Party PA v Boockvar, wherein Justice Alito Ordered [PDF] that "all (PA) ballots received by mail after 8:00 p.m. on November 3 be segregated and kept “in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted ballots”.
Can you say "noncompliance"?
Rudy's tactic here will be to show Alito's Order was deliberately disregarded (it was) and then kick the barn door open and create a rare evidentiary hearing in SCOTUS on the Equal Protection Clause -- in that, every voter within the state of Pennsylvania is entitled to have their vote identically protected. Which means disqualifying ballots that were obtained and counted through the unconstitutional Act 77.
Even if Roberts tries to rein him in, Rudy is the original at granting himself "expanded argument".
Speaking of, Roberts doesn't want this case. He fears this case, because Trump can take his pound of flesh and prove PA (Philly) was completely illegitimate, and yet Roberts has no remedy (remember, Alito's Order was disregarded, we can't go back and 'unscramble' these co-mingled past-the-post fraudulent votes now), other than the in extremis options of voiding the PA election OR giving it over to the same PA legislature that produced the unconstitutional Act 77. Literally a rock and a hard place.
This is the case where Trump can ruin Biden (puppet state) and especially Roberts (incompetent, or frankly, an illegitimate Chief Justice who does exactly what he has accused Trump of doing -- ruling from the bench). More power to Don.
Rudy is giving an interview live right now with Steve Bannon. He said that the Team Trump lawsuit in Pennsylvania, the plan is to take the case to the Supreme Court to argue that massive fraud took place in PA and also the issue about the PA SOS extending the election deadline by 3 days.
He skipped over the decision today with the 3rd circuit where he told them that the lawsuit is NOT about ballot fraud? So there is a big disconnect going here. What the hell is going on? The strategy does not make sense.
One thing for sure, if the Rats are allowed to steal the election then they (and communist China) will rule the USA forever.
Isn't this the strongest claim? Without poll watchers being able to watch both the counting and the addition of ballots at normal document reading distances, how can anyone be certain that there is no funny business going on? This famous photo would seem to show the closeness of the scrutiny required:
I am beginning to doubt not just Rudy’s judgment and temperament, but also his integrity.
If SCOTUS overturns the Third Circuit, the only result is that DJT will have to go back to trial court and amend his complaint a second time.
SCOTUS is not going to hear new testimony. It only reviews the record on appeal, and overturns a decision if it finds error in the lower court. SCOTUS is the SUPREME COURT of the land. It is not a trial court (there are exceptions, but none apply here).
Rudy knows this.
BTW, I have my doubts about Bannon. I tend to believe the allegations that he pocketed donations for the Wall by creating shell corporations. If DJT fired Bannon, then he had cause.
There is a theory..bottom line they have to get to the Supreme Court... but have to through the lowers courts first as fast as possible ..so to do that.. they are sand bagging in the lower courts so they can appeal
The Supreme Court is the only court that going to overturn this election the got to make it there before the Electoral College meet...
What’s going on is Trump and the Trump campaign want to keep his supporters and the best way to do that is to keep the base riled up by claiming the election and the Court’s are rigged.
If they had evidence it needed to be presented in the lower Courts they are using these lawsuits to gin up the base...
If you had been here at FR "MONTHS BEFORE the election", maybe you could have HELPED. Gosh.
Instead of showing up after to criticize Giuliani. Gosh.
It's almost like ... a pattern of new sign-ups who pivot. to. every. single. post-election. lawsuit. thread.
Gosh. Gosh.
"It is NOT at ALL strange they chose someone past his expiration date because it's an all-or-nothing gamble by the Dems to promote VP #Karamela as the bizznatch sheboon for de takeover.
Either Trump wins big and embarasses Biden-Karamela, or through ballot harvesting which is going on RIGHT NOW, the Dems flip FL and MI and PA and Karamela is President before 2022.
The #BLM is a distraction to the unconstitutional ballot harvesting.
Please take a case against ballot harvesting right now and groom it for emergency cert for fucks' sake. Don't wait until after the election, you'll get no traction.
"Come out swinging against mail-in ballots and have Trump threaten imprisonment for ballot harvesting, ie, "If you are found to have harvested ballots, you will go to jail. Period."53 posted on 4/25/2020, 7:47:20 PM by StAnDeliver (CNN's Dana B: "Show of hands: Coverage for undocumented immigrants?" ***all Democrat hands raised***)"But also think [Biden campaign is] trying to abandon [the Tara Reade #Narrative], and have pivoted solely to mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting.
It is their 1-in-100 shot to defeat a 'wartime' incumbent."
17 posted on 4/24/2020, 8:45:06 PM by StAnDeliver (CNN's Dana B: "Show of hands: Coverage for undocumented immigrants?" ***all Democrat hands raised***)
I’m just sharing my opinion, and I guess venting a little.
Having DJT supporters turn on each other is exactly what the Rats want, so let’s not play into their hand.
Also, as you know, I am new here. I am under the impression that this is a site where people of faith, the true patriots, can share knowledge.
Other than sharing knowledge, and maybe making contributions, I am not aware of how we can make a difference.
>>Not to be disrespectful but, yes, you are wrong. The Supreme Court does not hear or take evidence,<<
That doesn’t really make sense. How would the Supreme Court adjudicate a case without hearing the arguments of both sides as to the legitimacy of their case?
They would almost certainly take oral arguments.
If the Court accepts the case, it will review the record from the lower court. It will allow oral arguments on the issue before it but will not entertain new arguments or evidence. This is an appellate court, not a trial court. And again, the only issue that has been appealed is whether the trial court erred in not allowing the second amendment to Rudy’s complaint. Should he prevail, the case will be reminded to the trial court to allow the amended complaint. Do not expect a Rudy to start arguing fraud and presenting statistics. Not going to happen.
“Justice Clarence Thomas, graduate Yale Law School.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, graduate Harvard Law School.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, graduate Yale Law School.
Justice Samuel Alito, graduate Yale Law School.
Justice John Roberts, graduate Harvard Law School.”
It is a small club.
God_Country_Trump_Guns_Noob
Unlike Hillary, they all passed the bar exam LOL
Amen.
we also have to be concerned with their law clerks and their mental biases.
Present the evidence in court. When Trump appointees are saying you are NOT presenting any evidence, that’s not a conspiracy-it means you are not presenting evidence when your right hand is raised and your left is on the Bible.
But do not misunderstand, in SCOTUS oral arguments, Justices have complete scope to 'address' evidence presented to the lower court (from whence SCOTUS accepted cert), and can even orally examine amicus, which often by necessity at least present novel or de novo argument which may or may not have been heard at the lower court. New arguments require ... evidence.
That's the beauty of cert - many people think of cert as mostly rejection but that's not the case, just the numbers. Cert is so often exercised simple when it offer an easy glide path for the expected majority, ie, with the constitutional objection firmly established (originalists) or the chance to litigate and legislate from the bar (Roberts and the Squat re: Obamacare), then the Justices are much freer to entertain "expanded" oral argument about how the "evidence" does or does not sustain the underlying constitutional argument.
For instance, the minority in Bush v Gore -- after suddenly discovering state's rights after decades of wiping their azz with the 10th Amendment, including the very late RBG -- wanted to send the case back to FL Supreme Court with instructions to carry out a state-wide recount (which unsurprisingly might have given the state to Gore). Their effort was molded from the idea that the 10A argument could be satisfied if ("evidentiary" in air quotes) concerns about the recounting were removed and some ersatz standard were adhered/ginned up/hewed out of thin air.
Go to 26:00 and 1:06:00 of Bush v Gore oral argument and enjoy the 'evidentiary' discussions about hanging chads and even No. 2 pencils!
You earlier said you're a "lawyer with decades of experience, much of it in Fed Court" who just joined the forum two days ago. You also said in a post two days ago that you were highly confident President Trump would win the legal battle, thus earning a second term. But just two days later, you now say Trump's chances may have vanished. You blame Guiliani, say he was caught flat-footed, should have been prepared for this way before the election (given Trump warned about a mail-in ballot fiasco months ago), and you say Guiliani is embarrassingly unqualified to manage or prosecute Trump's lawsuits.
So now you have me really confused. Given you're so convinced Guiliani is past his prime, in way over his head, should have been fighting mail-in balloting many months ago, and never should have been prosecuting the cases in court (let alone managing Trump's entire legal team), why in the world were you so confident in Trump's legal and reelection chances just two days ago?
Don't forget Scalia - Harvard.
But remember, now, the reason that Scalia, Alito, Thomas were/have been able to exercise so much brilliance on the Court is precisely because their brilliance insulated them from being drummed out by Marxist law professors.
Law professors are the singularly laziest people on the planet -- witness Barack Obama, who put the 'con' in UChi Con Law for 13 freaking years.
But every last one of them knows -- including Bobo -- hands off the 2 or 3 smartest originalists/conservatives in the class, or you will be noticed for your own laziness and you will have to answer for even attempting C-level bs on a 4.0 originalist.
This is some deep irony, that meritocracy has truly trumped lazy Socialist law professors, has honed those conservatives into the most important legal minds in the free world, and now we have a 6-3 SCOTUS.
Do not doubt this is partially at the root of why Bobo has stubbed out the doobie in the Choom Room in his vast Georgetown manse and gotten back into the agitprop game...
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.