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.
“ Isn’t allowing these ballots that were fraudulent or arrived after the statuary law stated time disenfranchising the majority of voters that cast their ballots legitimately, on time and with all of the legal checks and validations? ”
I doubt a more racist statement has ever been uttered in the history of planet earth extending even to dinosaur times
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Trump hasn’t gone with the best legal advice possible and this looks like a disaster in the making.
“And they have already told you “no” once.”
That was before Sidney Powell’s suits. They have to be dealt with.
And they will be, but not by any State Legislature.
The disaster has been in the making for a long, long time, I'm afraid.
Exactly. It is easier to show violations than proving there is fraud (intentional violations). If these PA judges can't see the obvious violations, the SCOTUS would be more likely to agree with Trump's people. Violations or fraud, the election is bad.
Agree. Winning an initial skirmish gives credibility and possible room for other judges to vote accordingly.
Correct...And I haven't said in the past, or now, that such evidence exists. After all, they are "Republicans".
The major screw up Giuliani's didn't over turn the first case. If he continues to the Supreme court without over turning that case he is finished
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
With certain exceptions not relevant here SCOTUS only has appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution or federal law. As we all know by now, the Constitution specifically gives the states the right to determine their own election laws. I believe a claim of fraud in an election would therefore be a state election law matter for which SCOTUS would not have jurisdiction. Showing evidence of fraud (as opposed to a claim of fraud) to support a claim of violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause would give SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction, however.
Rudy has his place in this affair, but I'm hoping there are some substantial appellate attorneys backing him up. He has only argued before SCOTUS once and has not been in any kind of a courtroom in many years. That said, I'm sure the claims asserted in the complaint were carefully considered and if a claim for fraud was not included there was a good reason for not including it.
The businessman thought his seizure of the nomination from sixteen actually existing Republicans followed by his stunning victory in November would be like a hostile takeover in business - change the board, and the managers (Congress) report for duty Monday morning ready for the New Order.
Alas, it wasn’t like that at all.
So, are you thinking Guiliani is a saboteur, or a total mess up?
If I was Guiliani I would present a case to the 3rds with some legit but minor complaints-—enough to get a ruling, but not enough to show all my cards.
I dont know the law.....does everything need to be presented from the start ?
It’s a win, though....onward to higher authorities.
Thanks for sounding a sensible note of caution against the hopium that’s being peddled around here. The PA legislature is taking some first steps:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3910080/posts
However, if the underlying evidence is weak I doubt the PA GOP will commit to doing something so drastic.
I have read the first few pages of Trump’s Nov 9 complaint.
The main argument being made by Trump’s lawyers is that voters, who voted in person, were subjected to a much higher level of scrutiny than the voters who sent in absentee ballots.
In reading the 3rd circuit opinion, the 3rd court panel is basically saying Pennsylvania law allows lots of flexibility by county election officials as their reason for dismissing the Trump appeal.
Again, FReepers it is a good idea to read the court documents.
I have repeatedly posted my contempt for the GOP establishment, and it’s treatment of Trump. I will be delighted if Trump prevails, if for no other reason than to have four more years of his rubbing their noses in the political dung they espouse.
“We are all blind, so we cant see obvious fraud” Pigs and Crap heads, and to the trump appointee: You are a F***ing traitor.
Thank you mother I wont say any more or I will be slapped in the face and accused of backtalk
Total mess up. That case by a leftist judge on blocked poll watching will be carried to the supreme court. That was Guiliani's primary argument. It's like he doesn't realize that case was critical for his case. Someone needs to help Guiliani at this point.
Presbyterian Reporter yes. They're giving the benefit of the doubt to the voters. Which is fine but that wasn't the argument that Guiliani made which was blocked poll watching and ballots mailed after they where received(time travel)
Losing 3-0 on a panel of 2 Bush and 1 Trump appointees in no way qualifies as good news. SCOTUS will make its decision on the same evidence and issues presented to the Appellate. If new evidence is presented and SCOTUS feels it of import the case will be returned to the Appellate court. All that will last well beyond Dec 14.
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.