Posted on 11/21/2020 6:03:31 PM PST by blueplum
“Scaringi filed a request to delay the hearing, noting its complexity, his status as new to the case and recent turnover in the Trump legal team.
“Having only been retained today, Plaintiffs’ new counsel need additional time to adequately prepare this case for the upcoming oral argument and evidentiary hearing,” Scaringi wrote in a court filing.
“...“Furthermore, this is a case of significant complexity and importance to the people of the United States of America,” he said. “And, further, the court record compiled in such a short period of time already contains 148 docket entries by Plaintiffs, multiple Defendants and multiple Intervenor Defendants.”
The judge refused to give Trump’s new counsel time to further prepare, sending what many would consider to be an outrageous and partisan message to the attorney, the president and the country.
Despite the fact that the case could determine who serves as America’s president, and one side has been amassing its argument for two weeks while the other is barely 24 hours into his role, Brann rejected the request.
“Oral argument will take place as scheduled, tomorrow, November 17, 2020,” the judge wrote. “Counsel for the parties are expected to be prepared for argument and questioning...."
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
Please elaborate. I am curious genuinely as to why my perception of the constitution is incorrect
I admit I am just an average citizen on this one other particular expertise. So I can truly stand to learn ok this issue. I am interested in your perspective.
Judges are only allowed to look at evidence presented in court - Trump's lawyers haven't presented any evidence in court in these cases. Stuff on the internet or said at press conferences can't be considered. That's why Trump needs better lawyers.
They lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court a week ago. This is federal court. And the Republican judge who issued the ruling found that there was a lot wrong with Giuliani's arguments - he's not a good lawyer. The judge even writes at one point that Trump *might* have had a case if only he hired a competent lawyer, which is a pretty amazing thing to say in writing.
Re: 61:
What an ignorant comment. Disgusting.
Get back down in the basement, your babysitter made soup and sandwiches for lunch.
“They lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court a week ago. This is federal court.”
Nonsense. But even if it was...
“Although state supreme court rulings on matters of state law are final, rulings on matters of federal law can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.“
A presidential election is a matter of federal law, so any state Supreme Court ruling can be appealed to SCOTUS.
What's nonsense? That the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled against a Trump lawsuit on the 17th or that Judge Matthew Brann, who ruled against Trump in this case yesterday, is a federal judge serving in the Middle District of Pennsylvania? Or that the 3rd Circuit (a federal appeals court) ruled against Trump on a critical standing issue on November 16? I'm not sure what you're saying is nonsense.
A presidential election is a matter of federal law, so any state Supreme Court ruling can be appealed to SCOTUS.
Only if there's a federal constitutional violation. But mostly elections are questions of state law not federal law. Even if this particular case were appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and somehow they found reason to reverse it, the issue would be specific to Pennsylvania and wouldn't affect the outcome of the Presidential election.
...........it would be a steep mountain to climb because it’s just the judges “opinion”..............pair that with some HARD evidence of bias (like kin to a relative) though and it might fly...................
Were you in the courtroom for these cases? If not, how do you know what was presented?
All of these lawyers are highly accomplished people with impressive legal resumes. To claim they have all been suddenly struck with incompetence simultaneously is not credible.
It is far more believable that the same corrupt judges that let the fraud happen in the first place are now covering it up.
The states have not been sovereign since the Civil war.
That asshole is race virtue signaling
Wish those bastard Bushes had stayed in New England where they belonged
I listened to the arguments and read the briefs and the decisions? Does that answer you question?
All of these lawyers are highly accomplished people with impressive legal resumes. To claim they have all been suddenly struck with incompetence simultaneously is not credible.
Literally the last argument Giuliani made to the Judge in the Pennsylvania case was that he had accidentally deleted a big chunk of his complaint. Whatever you call that, it isn't competence.
Thanks so much for clarifying, I agree with what you said. And I genuinely appreciate the education.
“ What’s nonsense? That the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled against a Trump lawsuit on the 17th or that Judge Matthew Brann, who ruled against Trump in this case yesterday, is a federal judge serving in the Middle District of Pennsylvania? Or that the 3rd Circuit (a federal appeals court) ruled against Trump on a critical standing issue on November 16? I’m not sure what you’re saying is nonsense.”
None of that is nonsense. :-)
I was talking about your previous statement that the PA Supreme Court is a federal court. It’s not. The district courts are Federal but the PA Supreme Court is not.
“Only if there’s a federal constitutional violation. But mostly elections are questions of state law not federal law. Even if this particular case were appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and somehow they found reason to reverse it, the issue would be specific to Pennsylvania and wouldn’t affect the outcome of the Presidential election.“
???
Obviously, in their appeal, Team Trump will need to site a potential violation of the US Constitution, or the SCOTUS wouldn’t take it up! Likewise, they will need to demonstrate a potential impact on the election, otherwise why would anyone bother?
Remember - whatever “case(s)” or arguments wind up being taken up by the SCOTUS, will bear little resemblance to any particular cases in PA - it’s not like they are set in stone and simply get tried in one court after another.
Rather, they will evolve and adapt to the various courts, and where appropriate, be joined along the way by similar cases from other states.
Go suck your thumb...
But a hand recount of all original ballots no the machine generated ones would show just the Biden votes with nobody down the ticket being voted for also this hand count would show that the counties tallies were way off..
[They lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court a week ago. This is federal court. And the Republican judge who issued the ruling found that there was a lot wrong with Giuliani’s arguments - he’s not a good lawyer. The judge even writes at one point that Trump *might* have had a case if only he hired a competent lawyer, which is a pretty amazing thing to say in writing.]
Maybe that’s the point? Build in reversible error? That would be a nice delay tactic, if that’s what they wanted.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a federal court?
Since when?
Another thing, the US Supreme Court already ruled against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on counting ballots that arrived after 8 pm on Nov 4, no?
The SCOTUS specifically ordered that ballots that arrived November 3 be put aside. That was even before the elections, An order that the Pennsylvania SOS flouted.
It shouldn't be a problem getting the huge number of invalid ballots counted in Philly and Allegheny County declared invalid by SCOTUS.
Reading is fundamental. They lost in the state supreme court A WEEK AGO; however this article concerns a separate loss in federal court.
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.