Skip to comments.
Appeals court rejects Trump campaign’s Pennsylvania lawsuit, setting up Supreme Court next
Just the News ^
| November 27, 2020
| Sophie Mann
Posted on 11/27/2020 1:09:41 PM PST by gattaca
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-136 next last
To: moviefan8
The courts know PA is going to the USSC, since ALito was involved. They are just getting out of the way and letting this go to the USSC.
To: gattaca
I believe the Trump team wanted to plead their case before the SCOTUS...am I wrong?
To: gattaca
“ Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
What would have happened if Rudy had said “ Your honor, I have here 100 affidavits of witnesses to election fraud. May I present them in evidence to this court, and if not, who will hear this evidence?
23
posted on
11/27/2020 1:34:33 PM PST
by
JohnnyP
(Thinking is hard work (I stole that from Rush).)
To: glimmerman70
Nothing can be changed at SCOTUS. They will evaluate based on the evidence & presented & the record of the appellate hearing.
24
posted on
11/27/2020 1:35:02 PM PST
by
Sasparilla
( I'm Not Tired of Winning)
To: gattaca
If Biden somehow gets in, then the rule of law and voting means absolutely nothing. We will officially be a 3rd-world country and I’ll be taking proactive measures accordingly.
To: blueunicorn6
“The claim that Biden received 80,000,000 votes is a LIE.”
The hate in this country towards PDJT runs wide and deep. Biden didn’t get 80 million votes. The candidate who wasn’t Trump got that many.
To: gattaca
Good. Let’s get this to where it needs to be.
27
posted on
11/27/2020 1:36:16 PM PST
by
Bullish
(CNN is what happens when 8th graders run a cable network.)
To: moviefan8
Lol. This is only getting started. They have evidence and will prevail. He will win and get another 4 years and the democrats will cry.
To: gattaca
Will the Sniffer concede?
29
posted on
11/27/2020 1:37:37 PM PST
by
depressed in 06
(63 in '22. Now, more than ever! (I didn't take into account Mittens, Collins and Murkowski.))
To: Armscor38
Another of THE TESTS OF TRUTH is:
Logical Consistency
There is no logical consistency in your statement.
Your statement is a lie.
30
posted on
11/27/2020 1:38:14 PM PST
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer”)
To: gattaca
From the Appeals Court ruling: "Most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint boil down to issues of state law. But Pennsylvania law is willing to overlook many technical defects. It favors counting votes as long as there is no fraud. Indeed, the Campaign has already litigated and lost many of these issues in state courts ... its allegations are vague and conclusory. It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court properly denied leave to amend again. Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal." [NOTE: I added underlines for emphasis.]
31
posted on
11/27/2020 1:38:30 PM PST
by
gw-ington
(The Office of the President-Elect gw-ington and Vice President-Elect Loch Ness Monster)
To: gattaca
"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."
It was my understanding that the filings offered numerous specific allegations, along with affidavits supporting them. As for proof, I thought that was supposed to be determined in a full hearing, not simply in the filings.
To: Sasparilla
It can they show more or different evidence to SCOTUS than was done earlier. Should have asked the question better the first time.
To: JohnnyP
Evidence in the way of affidavits is only applicable if you a half Mexican half Negroid Democrat tranny. All else is “Conspiracy theory” according to the legal intelligencia. I think this circuit court judge was a Trump appointee. How disappointing. This pantload will be a real peach in coming years...lockdowns for the common cold, imminent domain for tearing down of William Penn states to be replaced by Harvey Milk statues, charter schools being outlawed. etc.
34
posted on
11/27/2020 1:39:39 PM PST
by
pburgh01
To: Armscor38
You are wrong about that. There is no way that 80 MILLION people - mainly in the important swing states (as Biden underperformed terribly WITH EVERY VOTER GROUP in the states that didn’t matter) turned out to vote against Trump. There is also NO WAY that black people hate Trump so much that they voted in higher numbers against him than they did for the candidate that they loved, Barack Obama.
To: KKDucMan
I must be missing something. I don’t understand how President Trump could allow a lawsuit to be filed with “no allegations and no proof”.The president doesn't expect to win, he just wants to go down fighting. He'll never concede and he'll never admit he lost. And that's OK.
36
posted on
11/27/2020 1:47:56 PM PST
by
Drew68
To: glimmerman70
“Can they change anything before it goes to Supreme Court or does it have to be the same case.”
I heard someone say they have to present the exact case presented in the lower court. No tweaking. Don’t know if that’s true or not, but what someone said.
37
posted on
11/27/2020 1:48:42 PM PST
by
MayflowerMadam
("FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING." Landmark case - SCOTUS/ U.S. v. Throckmorton)
To: Steve_Seattle
So the banana court is saying whoever can manufacture the most illegal votes wins. Case closed.
And then they have the gall to call it a fair and honest election. /spit.
To: gattaca
Failing forward toward to the SCOTUS trying to outrun a deadline....
39
posted on
11/27/2020 1:49:36 PM PST
by
jmclemore
(Go Trump)
To: gattaca
And now you can see clearly why the democrats fought tooth and nail to try to prevent Amy Coney Barrett from being seated on the Supreme Court. She wll counter liberal Justice John Roberts and swing the Supreme Court to the conservative side for a change.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-136 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson