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.
“And they will be, but not by any State Legislature.”
Then you need to alert Trump and tell him not to waste time in addressing the Pennsylvania legislature, or his team in testifying about fraud to them.
Exactly
The left and the MSM (I know same thing) always tells us that Trump pissed off Roberts some how. Well the Penn SOS really pissed off Alito and I see the court sending this whole farce to the House and then the state Legislatures will pick the President
I just hope there are not more Never Trumpers than good Americans in those 27 states controlled by alRepublicans
I read the opinion, which was co-authored by two Trump appointees and a W. Bush appointees. There was NO JUDICIAL BIAS. The judges ruled correctly for what was put in front of them.
The problem is Giuliani. He amended the complaint, and in doing so, butchered it. He threw out the critical causes of action. Then he made an idiot of himself in oral arguments, and specifically said “we are not alleging fraud.” So he lost the motion for an emergency order. Then the whole lawsuit was dismissed. The trial judge did NOT give him an opportunity to amend the complaint again.
Rather than appeal the ruling denying an emergency order, he appealed ONLY the order denying an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
The third circuit had a narrow question before it: “did the District court abuse its discretion by denying an opportunity to amend?”
The answer: No. And I am not surprised. The Circuit Court looked at the case history, looked at the oral arguments, the evidence (or lack thereof) and ruled that there was no abuse of discretion. By the way, “abuse of discretion” is an EXTREMELY difficult standard to prevail upon on appeal. Again, I am not surprised.
Worse yet, even if DJT goes to SCOTUS, the SCOTUS has discretion to DENY to hear the case. And even if they hear the case, overturning on abuse of discretion is not likely. And even if it is overturned, all that means is that Giuliani will have to go back to trial court and submit a second amended complaint, and file another motion for some kind of emergency order.
Highly unlikely.
I blame Giuliani. He has not been inside a court room this century. He is incompetent. He should be fired. Not only is he a bad advocate, he is a bad manager. These cases should have always been litigated by top-tier attorneys. As DJT’s personal attorney, he should have been interviewing the best of the best, and gone to court with a team of gun slingers.
At one point, their lawyer was a local solo-practice divorce and custody attorney. Give me a break!
Mr. President, please bring back Sidney Powell, yesterday! Why is she left to fight these fights alone?
“ The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter," wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, for the panel. "It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile."
One day soon people here will realize they are being lied to.
Fraud vitiates the most solemn contract. Attempting fraud, whether needed or not to win, nullifies the election result in its entirety.
What about Jenna? Doesn’t she bear some of the blame, too?
The argument of the third is that there was only a “little bit” of fraud. (iow “she was only a little bit pregnant”)
I don’t think these judges saw much of the case. no analysis, etc etc.
Actually,we have been a lawless nation for a while.
This is the clown judge that was appointed by Trump:
“If there is a jurist that Bibas looks likely to model, it is recently-retired Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. Like Bibas, Posner was a brilliant path-breaking academic when he was tapped to the federal bench. On the bench, Posner was notoriously unpredictable, with little ideological commitment, but a deep concern nonetheless for the practical application of decisions, famously noting:
“A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself – forget about the law – what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”
Bibas’ own concern about the practical effect of the Supreme Court’s criminal decisions, especially their effects both for defendants and victims, can be described as Posnerian. It is up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to determine if that is a quality to be encouraged on the federal bench.”
https://vettingroom.org/2017/10/02/stephanos-bibas/
The Third Circuit, this board made up of judges appointed by republicans, is hardly “activist.”
The hyperbole drama crap is getting out of hand.
I’m more concerned that we lost what should’ve been an open and shut case based a case that claimed being 100 feet away is “observing”
It’s not really a win, but more likely simply holding the door open and saying, “You are taking it up to SCOTUS, so just go.”
No Republican Legislature is going to override the popular vote (or the perception of the popular vote) by appointing electors directly.
The time to do this was December 2000 and the place to do it was Tallahassee, Florida. The conditions that existed then and there are not present now in any of the contested states.
And you have to think ahead to what would happen when Congress meets on January 6 to count the votes. There will be 270 Democrats and 265 Republicans in the room, all disputes are settled by majority vote, and it is beyond doubt that the Secretaries of State of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will have transmitted Electoral votes for Biden to dispute any appointed by State Legislatures.
It’s over without Trump using the military to seize power and to dissolve Congress. I do not think that would end well.
Yes but they are going through the process where as the Freepers to whom I am referring are wishing to skip process and have Supreme Court overstep.
There is a double prong effort to overturn this stolen election. Some of it is about the process (Rudy) and some of it is about the fraud (Sidney).
We have too many amateur cooks in the FR kitchen giving the professional chef in the Trump White House too many ingredients on how to proceed with preparing the final dish.
Thanks for that detailed info..I really meant why wouldn’t Alito write the opinion versus the prediction by the poster who said Barret would write it.
I think equal protection is a solid federal argument.
In fact I like the idea of other states joining in to present that fraud in MI and PA denied equal protection across the country.
Every state that will not allow detailed inspection of their vote tally facilities should not be allowed to cast electoral votes in this election.
What’s our best recourse, now?
Except Giuliani didn't raise any constitutional issues in the 3d Circuit-- only whether he should have been allowed to file a third version of his complaint. Even if he won that, it would entitle him only to go back to the same trial judge and start over. So my bet is SCOTUS refuses to hear this case.
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.