Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
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.
I read the opinion, which was co-authored by two Trump appointees and a W. Bush appointees. There was NO JUDICIAL BIAS.Let's try these ridiculous assertions:
And if your Aunt had balls, she's be your Uncle.
What you state is impossible to prove. Not "prove" in the sense that you or I believe it.
I mean, prove by a preponderance of the evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction to the satisfaction of a panel of judges expert in law and in the Constitution.
That is just not going to happen, and it is shameful to exploit people's hopes, and it's triply shameful to be fundraising off of it.
Yes it did, in a disastrous power grab to increase the illegitimate authority of the Federal courts even further.
Well if they are not primary jurisdiction (lawsuit between states) then the only other way is through the process of the circuit courts.The Constitution stipulates categories of primary jurisdiction, but it in no way prohibits others from primary jurisdiction. If so, show me the text.
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
And if your Aunt had balls, she's be your Uncle.I'll take your disgusting insult as admission of your pathetic arguments here.
Generally, and so long as Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 are honored, State law, not Federal law, governs voting rights. Example: some states allow felons to vote, others don’t.
If state law is willing to allow technical defects, Federal Courts cannot impose new restrictions. And the PA Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is the authority here, OKd it.
I think the allegations were a hodgepodge, including:
- improper signature verification,
- unequal curing of defects among precincts,
- poor access by poll watchers.
The first is clearly a state law issue The second, at best, would give the remedy of the improperly excluded ballot to be counted. It would not give the remedy of throwing out all the other votes.
The third would have to be backed by solid declarations. Simply saying DJT’s observers were denied access is not a Federal question (it is a state question). Giuliani should have alleged that DJT’s poll observers were denied access in the same locations where Biden’s observers were granted unfettered access.
To be honest, Giuliani really, REALLY messed this up.
DJT was warning us about mail-in ballots as early as August. Giuliani, as his personal attorney, should have followed a multi-prong stragegy:
1- we fight tooth and nail in state legislatures to either stop or put severe limits on mail ballots,
2- Push the RINO Repug McConnell to pass comprehensive, uniform, Federal election security measures,
3- Test any fishy state legislation in state or Fed courts BEFORE the election, and then
4- Before the election, have a team of seasoned gunslinger lawyers ready in each and every state where fraud is suspected.
Unlike DJT, Giuliani was completely unprepared, and was caught flat footed.
It is what he said, in his own words, the guy is undermining Trump whether intentionally or not. Sad to see.
Which is the point-— the Constitutional point to be made before SCOTUS will all the proofs.
Several Articles of the Constitution violated by State(S) plural in carrying out their Constitutional duties for a clean election, that does not deny the electoral franchise to citizens from other States in the Union.
A major point— provable, and which will be decided enbanc for 6 or more states in dispute. Capped with undeniable technical proof coming to “security cleared” SCOTUS justices from intel sources.
The Supreme Court has primary jurisdiction on issues between states. Because the text is silent means that they have little other authority certainly primary authority. The USSc is the is the final arbiter over the federal judiciary and is a proscribed process to follow.
Instead of arguing with me most admit you want an all powerful Supreme Court that can “do whatever it wants”.
No thanks
And as a textualist I think the USSC has no right to insert itself in an election. This is a state event only. It’s overreach for the feds to be involved. As such there already exists remedy to fraud and election chicanery ... it’s called the state legislature.
Where is the actual suit filing? The full filing.
Judges can only rule on what is presented to them in a case, not anything else. The judges ruled on what Rudy gave them, which wasn't his best case.
This particular lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court for the Central District of Pennsylvania, and was then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Some of the actions of the trial court can be found here:
https://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/donald-j-trump-president-v-boockvar-et-al-420-cv-02078
You brought it up. Provide the link.
Thank you for clarifying that. There are a lot of people on TV and radio that do not understand the actually process so you get a lot of white noise.
What if many in the various legislatures are dirty and violate the Constitution? What recourse would the People have?
Worth repeating.
If they are not alleging fraud in lower court proceedings, how the heck can they bring it up later if it goes to SCOTUS?
He has to say that in court because he doesnâÂÂt have evidence of fraud. If he claims their is fraud and he has no evidence he could lose his law license and suffer other penalties.
This has been nothing more than a money grab by the Trump organization and the RNC. They are lying that they evidence of fraud and are using smoke and mirrors to throw doubt on the election. And way to many freepers are falling for it.
No. We are being lied to. Rudy and the rest of them getting screaming about fraud in press conferences and media appearances but when they get to court, where they would suffer penalties if they lied about fraud, they donâÂÂt make those claims. If fact in this case Rudy explicitly states it wasnâÂÂt a fraud case.
âÂÂWe have neither here. The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that PennsylvaniaâÂÂs 2020 election was unfair. But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign âÂÂdoesnâÂÂt plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.â Instead, it objects that PennsylvaniaâÂÂs Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.âÂÂ
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.