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.
Ten days after the presidential election, L. Lin Wood Jr., a Georgia voter, sued state election officials to enjoin certification of the general election results, to
secure a new recount under different rules, and to establish new rules for an upcoming runoff election.
Filed lawsuit Nov 13th and Georgia certified Nov 20th and Judge rules 12/5 it’s moot because it’s already certified.
So what, Court delays hearing a lawsuit, waits for it to be certified then says it’s moot because it’s already been certified? Insane.
For better or worse, we are a nation of laws.
Ha ha. That’s funny. Do you write comedy for a living?
And a Trump-appointed judge joined in the opinion.
And a Trump appointed judge let Fake News Jim Acosta back in the WH. This ruling underscores the uselessness of heaping praise on the GOP Senate for confirming Trump judges. History shows us counting chickens on GOP judges is a fools errand.
...........For better or worse we are a nation of laws.........
OMG are you kidding me??? Where in the hell have you been for the last decade??? Have you been in a coma somewhere???
By corrupt, partisan hack so-called “Judges,” that’s how.
He would have had standing had he sued in Georgia state court. Standing in federal court is much narrower.
There is something in federal court called the "general grievance" doctrine, which says, basically, that if everyone has standing, no one does. The idea-- and conservative judges created this doctrine, to limit judicial activism-- is that if everyone is equally affected by a rule or decision, then they can overturn it through their elected representatives; only if something affects someone in particular, in a way that others are not affected, do they have standing to ask a federal court to overturn it. Therefore, in a post-election dispute, the defeated candidate has standing, but the average voter does not.
Standing in federal court is much narrower.
Unless Judge Sullivan is presiding.
We don't. Yet Danny DeVito and Fauci do.
I would agree!
I agree with that, of course; but the electors literally are the people directly affected by the vote, as they will be denied the chance to attend the Electoral College by the fraudulent results.
Is the 11th an appeals court?
So if Trumps lawyers appeals there then he has standing!
We will find out if that’s the case, Powell’s hearing on Monday - the Plantiff’s are 8 electors nominated by the Republican Party
The matter was appealed to the 11th Circuit after a state court dismissed the suit.
Probably not. Page one of the decision makes it clear that this matter is a state matter and the federal courts don't have jurisdiction. Wood should have appealed to the state supreme court.
Lagoa was being discussed when ACB was chosen
Yes, it's the Court of Appeals for federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
“The Tea Party champions gave us a touch of political independence and then came Trump”
The Tea Party Movement had a great effect.
The house actually had a caucus called the Tea Party Caucus.
Now it is called the Freedom Caucus probably because the TPM had such a positive effect on politics, so was attacked without mercy during the Obama administration etc.
Trump supporters are the new tea party people.
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.