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.
The answer to all questions is:
Yes.
No one is more desirous of that outcome than I am. I would love to see the PA, WI and MI legislatures submit Trump Electoral slates. But my enthusiasm is tempered by the situation in which the Rat governors' certified Electoral slates would take precedence, if I read 3 USC §15 correctly:
... and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted...
Time is of the essence; Dec. 8 is fast approaching.
Rudy didn't contest it which is the same as allowing it to carry over to all other cases in PA. Meaning all those cases that observers where blocked from observing has been allowed to stand. This is completely unacceptable. Rudy screwed up and the Supreme court correctly will not see his case
This was a massive mistake
” Rudy didn’t contest it which is the same as allowing it to carry over to all other cases in PA. Meaning all those cases that observers where blocked from observing has been allowed to stand. This is completely unacceptable. Rudy screwed up and the Supreme court correctly will not see his case
This was a massive mistake “
The PA Supreme Court ruled that. Blame the PA Legislature for not getting involved or the US Supreme Court.
You are welcome. Glad it made sense.
We voted just a few weeks ago.
Why do you think voting more is going rectify the fraudulent election just past, or stop the likelihood of the same happening again in the future?
I think you are actually surreptitiously suggesting something different, something that we are nowhere near.
There are too many like you here.
And on top of that, the 3rd Court ordered the Trump Campaign to pay PA’s costs for defending against this appeal.
“P.S. The panel also assessed costs against the Trump campaign. In other words, they will have to pay Pennsylvania’s costs for defending against this appeal.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/27/third-circuit-rejects-trump-campaigns-appeal/#
Until you see someone show a court that enough votes should be switched, there will be no change...
‐‐—————————————————
Rofl.
WRONG but very funny.
You are a pessimist. I think between now and then, enough will be produced to convince most people that the election results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona are a fraud.
And yet on january 30 donald trump will still be president of the usa..
It is very troubling the way things have been proceeding. They should be knocking this stuff out of the park by this point.
Makes me wonder if this stuff is not appeasement drama for our sake.
It's true they ruled it though Rudy had to contest it which he did NOT. The US supreme court needs a case to rule on. Rudy didn't give them one. This was a major mistake that is simply unacceptable
So now you have me really confused. Given you're so convinced Guiliani is past his prime, way over his head, and never should have been prosecuting the cases in court (let alone managing Trump's entire legal team), why in the world were you so confident in Trump's legal and reelection chances just two days ago?
When a court has decided a case without addressing all the evidence, they can sometimes fool the part of the public that is ignorant of the important facts.
The marks you are using in your possessives and contractions don’t seem to be working. See OneVike’s recent posts.
They seem to think so. After Rudy's screw up. They will have to start from scratch again as Rudy's case had no chance to amend it. This might be our best chance to get the electoral votes we need. Though I personally believe there are other paths Trump hasn't played yet.
A RESOLUTION
Declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 General Election to be in dispute.
WHEREAS, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of conducting elections; and
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to direct the manner of appointing electors for President and Vice President of the United States
(More at link)
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20190&cosponId=32628&mobile_choice=suppress
I had faith that DJT would serve a second term, whether by winning in court, or by having legislators send in electors that represent the true will of the majority of Americans.
Today, my faith is a little shaken. I guess I am doing more and more Monday morning quarterbacking.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and in particular, reading the recent 3rd Circuit opinion, I now think this whole thing should have been handled differently.
If you wait until after the election to try to overturn fraud, you already have 2 strikes against you. Time is short, and you are working against a well-oiled machine.
I now think Team Trump should have prepared for this far, far better.
I still have faith in the power of prayer, and I encourage all true patriots to pray for our president.
:)
Neither of you have refuted my claim about the powers of SCOTUS to take on this case, only what you think it should do.
Next point?
I’m not an expert in PA law, and I don’t know the substantive difference (if any) between a resolution and a bill. My scant reading indicates that come Monday, this resolution will be void if not voted upon.
The Constitution grants each state wide latitude in holding elections to choose electors. So I will defer to someone who knows more about PA law.
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.