Appeals Court: Trump Election Challenge in Michigan Is Moot Because Election Results were Already Certified Before The Trump Campaign Filed Its Brief

Associated Press via NewsMax ^ | 12/04/2020

[SeekAndFind]

The Michigan appeals court turned down an appeal Friday from President Donald Trump's campaign in a challenge to how absentee ballots were handled in Detroit and other issues.

In a brief order, the court said the lawsuit fails because Michigan's election results, including Joe Biden's 154,000-vote victory over Trump, were certified on Nov. 23, a week before the campaign filed an appellate brief.

The court said the president's only recourse was a recount, but that has passed, too.

“Because plaintiff failed to follow the clear law in Michigan relative to such matters, their action is moot,” Judge Stephen Borrello said in a 2-1 order.

Judge Patrick Meter disagreed, saying a three-judge panel should quickly hear the appeal.

“The issues are not moot because state electors have not yet been seated, the Electoral College has not yet been assembled and Congress has not yet convened to consider whether to exercise its powers under” the constitution, Meter said.

[Boise3981]

The state of Florida certified it’s results in 2000 election, and the court cases kept going on and on like it never happened. In fact, Gore kept winning them all

In 2000, the state of Florida certified it's results. Gore kept going and had some success. But ultimately he lost not on the merits, but because he ran out of time. Recount wasn't done, safe harbor hit, FL said "well I guess we use the original count then" and it was over.

Safe harbor is Tuesday. Anything not accomplished by Monday at 11:59pm is too late.

[Boise3981]

4) race to certify before anything can be done

Most states have a law that requires states to certify by a certain time. Some states have "as soon as possible" others give an actual date. For example, Michigan was required by MI law to certify by 12/1.

[Boise3981]

Not to worry. - that’s not a legal reason to moot out a case. It roll be appealed and it helps that this absurd decision came fast

When you file a case you have to ask for a remedy - something to fix the problem you're talking about. If your remedy is "stop the certification" and the certification has already happened, then the case is moot.

In this case, it was the remedy they asked for that ended the case.

[datura]

Welcome to FR - sincerely. Usually when I type that it is with deep sarcasm, but not this time.

[FLT-bird]

Yeah yeah, we get it. He “lacks standing” before the election because he hasn’t suffered any harm yet.

After the election it’s “laches” because it’s already done and he should have appealed earlier.

Appeal to the state Supreme Court and then SCOTUS obviously.

[Boise3981]

If there's any remedy it's in the Federal courts.

Elections are an exclusive state power. There's no real federal role here according to federalism. The states make and enforce their rules.

There is no remedy in federal court. If there's a remedy it's going to have to come from state supreme courts.

[FLT-bird]

It can be appealed to SCOTUS from the Michigan Supreme Court.

SCOTUS said in Bush V Gore that every presidential election is a federal matter and that it therefore has jurisdiction.

[MAGAthon]

2h ago: Tweet: Phillip Kline, Former Attorney General of Kansas
This election’s December 8 and 14 deadlines for the selection of Electors, the assembly of the Electoral College, and the tallying of its votes, respectively, are not only elements of of a 72-year old federal statute but also have ZERO Constitutional basis.

1h ago: The December 8th and 14th timeline of selecting electors could easily be moved without harm to country; especially when one side is not providing the details we need to verify election results and the other side has evidence that is starting to flow...

2h ago: December 8 Deadline for Selection of Electors Does Not Apply to Disputed States ETC
https://twitter.com/PhillDKline

[enumerated]

What has happened to Free Republic? Is it nothing but a bunch of trolls?

[Boise3981]

You and I have NO idea what's going on behind the scenes in DC and the rigged states.

One of the wonderful things about the judicial branch is that there's really not that much going on behind the scenes.

They do their work in public. They justify and explain their decisions. They cite their work. They can't spin their actions for different audiences. It's all out in the open.

As far as the courts, Trump has run out of time. There's no fishing line or things up his sleeves. If he's hoping for a judicial remedy, that time has almost certainly past.

[BigEdLB]

We made it impossible for you to challenge so we could treasonously Kiss some Chinese butt and submit. Digested Kung Pao Chicken is really shitty, But I wont mention that.

udge Stephen Borrello disagreed, saying Digested Kung Pao is better than you think so I will continue to kiss butt

[God_Country_Trump_Guns]

That is NOT what SCOTUS ruled in Bush v Gore.

In Bush v Gore, SCOTUS ruled that the FL Supreme Court’s decision to allow a recount created disparate treatment among the precincts. This violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The mere fact that a Federal election is at stake does not create Federal jurisdiction. The actual issue debated must be a Federal question.

[Boise3981]

SCOTUS said in Bush V Gore that every presidential election is a federal matter and that it therefore has jurisdiction.

That is decidedly NOT what SCOTUS said in Bush v. Gore.

The Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, but ballots were being judged differently by different counties. Some were counting "hanging chad" ballots, some dimpled chat ballots, some hanging by 2 corners, some by 1, some by 3, etc... Some counties were changing procedures halfway through the count.

Bush argued that it was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because different ballots/voters were being treated differently depending on what county or even when in the processing they were being recounted.

The federal issue in Bush v. Gore was the equal protection clause, NOT that it was a presidential election.

In fact the constitution specifically says that presidential electors are handed out in the manner in which the state prescribes. It's a state responsibility/power. If you're counting on the fact that it's a presidential race to give the feds a reason to get involved... you're going to be disappointed.

[God_Country_Trump_Guns]

Thanks.

My first week here, a good dozen or more people insulted me and accused me of being a Rat mole - basically shooting the messenger.

So let me ask you something because I don’t know proper protocol. Should I be saying thank you to everyone who welcomes me? Is it bad form not to thank those who are welcoming?

[Boise3981]

This election’s December 8 and 14 deadlines for the selection of Electors, the assembly of the Electoral College, and the tallying of its votes, respectively, are not only elements of of a 72-year old federal statute but also have ZERO Constitutional basis.

The constitution gives most power over elections to the states. The little power Congress has over elections is to set the time/date of the whole process.

The 72-year old federal statute does that. It says when the election happens, when safe harbor is, and when the electoral college votes.

Congress could probably change that if they wanted. I'm not sure if they could do it after the November election but before the EC vote... maybe? But I know that the House Dems (and Senate Dems via the filibuster) aren't going to allow a new law to pass. So, whether they can is beside the point, because Congress won't.

But the law certainly has a constitutional basis.

[easternsky]

WELCOME to FREE REBUBLIC

[mazz44]

A bunch of trolls and what I would say, in the strict definition, Pricks! Very dusturbing. Rudy and team is doing a formidable job in a never before situation.

[FLT-bird]

Read Rhenquist’s notes.

[rxsid]

"The state legislatures have the power to accept the electors or reject them and seat their own.

This is really our only hope.

The courts, including SCOTUS, are not going to throw out fraudulent votes/ballots. The only thing they can, or will, do is to tell the states to follow their own state laws regarding elections in their states. Which means it's right back to the states...to do the right, lawful thing.

And, hoping that 1 Senator in addition to Rep Brooks challenges the states E.C. votes will almost certainly lead to failure in a Pelosi controlled house. Most voted to impeach Trump. No way they are going to reject Biden and put Trump back in power.

The state legislatures are really our only hope.

[FLT-bird]

Read what Rhenquist said. He said that any presidential election was a federal matter.