Posted on 11/27/2020 9:53:45 AM PST by Alter Kaker
Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. 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. The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.” Instead, it objects that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.
This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not. 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.
The Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet 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.
Concur...Thanks to an educational system putrefied by parental etc, neglect. And the very likely prospect that amnesty will sooner or later be the icing on the cake.
IMO, there are- as we speak- four opinions on the SCOTUS for non-involvement in state matters dealing with elections. This will be a serious test for at least one more supreme.... It may be the GOP has come to a crossroads it can't avoid. Legislatures in GA, MI, PA and WI hold the key to Trump's reelection.
“To clarify - “
______________________
Ok, Thanks! My BP just came down about 40 Hg points...!
... have a few wins on the way up to SCOTUS.
____________________________
Then a District Court is the final arbiter and it never gets to SCOTUS. Biden is not about to appeal that high.
>>But Pennsylvania law is willing to overlook many technical defects.
So the law is merely a vague suggestion? Maybe I’ll try that approach next time I rob a bank. <<
They are opening up a can of worms with that. How many people are in jail because they didn’t overlook technical defects in a law?
I am not saying you are wrong. But remember, true constructionist judges are apolitical. They do not feel they owe Trump anything. As such, they will not take a case that is weak on the face of it. If Trump has evidence they need to produce it now so Alito agrees. Right now this case is really weak. They are not even addressing 600,000 potentially illegal votes. Why? Just to get before SCOTUS there has to be strong evidence of fraud. The way I understand it without a voters referendum election laws in PA cannot be modified or changed. I thought that was the actually case, I am surprised it is not.
It was Kelly that demanded Bannon be gone Trump would have been MUCH BETTER off if Trump had told Kelly to get screwed and kept Bannon!! ALL of these stinking Generals ARE DEEP STATE except Flynn!!!
Don’t you DARE start waving your white flag NO!!!!
In a previous case, Chief Justice John Roberts characterized Pennsylvania elections statutes as basically vague suggestions, subject to extremely broad and even contradictory interpretations that benefit Democrats on the grounds that Pennsylvania supreme court treats them as such.
If the unsigned ballots are fraudulent for the federal candidates, they’re fraudulent for the state and local candidates as well. Are there some unsigned ballots because of a legal voter’s carelessness? Sure, but only so many. If there are hundreds upon hundreds, that’s deliberate, not error.
They can't all be Gateway Pundit BOOM! articles.
Rudy didn’t convict those mobsters in New York. He was the U.S. Attorney. The people that got the convictions were young Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the FBI agents assigned to the cases.
Don’t mind Rudy being the face of the Trump team for PR purposes, but he should never be allowed in a courtroom.
The way I understand it the 600,000/3,200 dump is all about the Dominion servers and that is where fraud will come in and that is Sidney Powells case.
This is what I just learned today through radio news about my own state of Washington.
Yes, thank you.
I'm like an antidote to hopium.
You have a nice day too!
You are right, Trump needs 270 to win or 269 to throw it to the Congress. PA had the most obvious fraud next to MI. I read recently that Wisconsin is back in play because during the audit way more votes are in question then the number of votes Biden leads by. I hope the PA legislation may assign GOP electors rather then have the courts overturn the State certification. So if WI seems likely and PA flips, we go to 262 to 275. Nevada will not help us, we will need GA, AZ or MI. Of those MI is the most likely to win in court. The next best would be PA, MI and NV. Either way it will take three states and that is tough.
I agree with you as to the denial of cert. But even if they do accept the case, the only issue before the Court is whether the lower court erred in denying the second request for amendment of the complaint. No new evidence can be presented, indeed evidence is not presented to an appeals court. So the very best outcome at the Supreme Court is a finding of error and remand to the trial court to allow the complaint to be amended.
In reading the opinion it appears the Trump lawyers were mainly arguing and not presenting any facts. Not good.
Humongous BUMP!!
And they have already told you "no" once.
When the Supreme Court refuses to hear any of these cases, there will be a brief flurry of interest, again, in the direct appointment route (which should have been used in Florida in 2000), but there is zero evidence the GOP legislators in the necessary states have even a shred of interest in doing that.
“””I have not read the court filing”””
Likewise, I have not read the filing. Is there a link to the filing?
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.