Posted on 12/05/2020 9:20:20 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
The 11th Circuit just issued its decision in L. Lin Wood's appeal of the district court's denial of his request for an injunction against the Georgia election results. The decision holds that (a) Wood lacks standing, and (b) even if he didn't, any election challenge is now moot because Georgia already certified its electoral votes.
I just read the judge is the same one who enforced the ruling removing the 10 commandments from the Alabama courthouse.
I personally think there is no grounds to file the lawsuit until the results are certified. You’re supposed to exhaust your administrative remedies before going to court. But maybe it’s the way he pled it and the relief he requested that made it moot.
Pryor was Alabama AG. Moore was in violation of a court order, and lost his appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. Like it or not, Pryor was bound to enforce the law and the court order. “Pryor said that although he agreed with the propriety of displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, he was bound to follow the court order and uphold the rule of law.” For better or worse, we are a nation of laws.
Every voter has standing. What an excuse.
I am NOT surprised. 🤬
Is it true that this judge was on Trumps short list of USSC justices?
They certified results from a known fraudulent election and because they did so we cannot investigate the fraud. Ok. 😂
OK. Am I the only person who thinks that we are “protesting” or rallying at the wrong venues or events? Why do we not take our voices to the law makers? So why not target judges? Surely the numbers of crowds we generate we should be able to gather the same in the offices or fronts of their homes. Just saying.
This is a total bullshit ruling. No certification should be considered valid as long as there are active lawsuits for that state.
It seems like a single Georgia voter would have Standing.
Yeah, courts and politicians run the clock down and then complain that there’s no longer any time for a remedy.
You know, I’ve thought along those same lines about the flurry of court cases. The Art of Distraction. Basically, keep your eyes on my busy, distracting right hand while I lift your wallet with my left hand. Only, not in a con/scam, but rather like a magicians trick. Perhaps Guiliani, Powell, Woods, et al ARE providing the distraction.
A link to the text of the opinion appears below, if anyone wants to read it. It is classified as a “published” opinion, which means it has value as precedent.
The narrow issue that was lost in trial court, and then again on appeal, will ALMOST CERTAINLY not be heard by SCOTUS, and if it is, it will be rejected.
The concept of “standing” is something that confuses many non-attorneys. Federal courts can only legislate actual cases or controversies. They cannot give advisory opinions. Otherwise, they would be legislating from the bench, which violates our Republican system of separation of powers.
In order to have a “case or controversy” you need (1) an actual dispute and (2) a litigant who is alleging a harm that (3) can be redressed by judicial intervention.
An individual voter cannot challenge an election result unless he alleges that he was illegally prevented from voting or his legal vote was not counted.
Also, the dispute has to be live. If a dispute has been resolved or rendered moot, the judges will be legislating from the bench.
I must have read well over a dozen opinions (trial court and appellate court, Federal and state courts) and I now believe this whole thing was GROSSLY mis-managed.
You do not wait until AFTER the election to challenge the procedures.
Political pressure should have been put upon state legislators to enact election security.
McConnell refused to even DEBATE uniform Federalized election security.
BEFORE the election, carefully drafted lawsuits should have obtained orders specifying crystal clear election security protocols.
The Constitution grants states broad right to regulate elections. So long as Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 are followed, states run the show. If a state allows 17 year old incarcerated felons to vote, it would be within its rights.
It may be time for a Constitutional Amendment to allow Congress to enforce uniform Federalized election security.
The text of the 11th Circuit opinion can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202014418.pdf
Wood is a registered voter in Georgia. This is proof that this judge has maggots chewing on his brain
“This is not your Father’s government”...
Actually Lin Wood isn't listed as an attorney in this case. He's a plaintiff in his role as a Georgia voter! Next move, appeal to another native Georgian. Justice Thomas has the duty overseeing 11th Circuit!
Ask Pryor how fraudulent ballots can be certified.
Pryor has no standing to make this decision.
I believe this is a former AL attorney general and staunch RINO.
Trump had Pryor on the short list for SCOTUS several times.
And a Trump-appointed judge joined in the opinion.
Why wouldn’t he have standing he is a citizen of Georgia and a voter??
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.