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.
Yes. There are too many like me who do not want to be minions of a run away government including Supreme Court. These are the times that try a mans soul. The only question is are we going to stand for our rights in the brilliance of what the founding fathers gave us or are we going to depend on an all powerful Supreme Court. As Dr Franklin opined ... those who would trade liberty for security are deserving of neither. Words for you to consider.
True for this case. The ruling allowed for 100 feet as acceptable. That could've been over turned Rudy failed to do it
That is nice of you to say. Thank you
You still haven’t told us, plainly, your practical pathway to saving the Republic. (You seem to be all ‘gas’ and not much ‘Dr.’.)
The Founders gave us remedies, in our Constitution.
We are following those; and the Fat Lady hasn’t sung, yet.
I try to be ‘nice’ most of the time.
Sometimes, when it’s very important, I’m simply factual; and I let the chips fall where they may.
I never claimed to be perfect
I’m not a lawyer. People are blaming Giuliani. Others say it’s good because then the court goes up to higher court and there’s not enough time anyway. Someone replace explain?. 🤷🏻♀️
Please* explain
So this 3rd circuit court ruling is a good thing? 🤷🏻♀️
The 3-Judge Panel were all appointed by Republican Presidents including one appointed by President Trump.
One of the Justices wrote sternly that Giuliani had presented no evidence of fraud to which Giuliani responded this case was not a fraud case, it was only to decide if the denial of his lower court motion to amend deprived rights of Plaintiff.
Now I would bet the Justices were fully aware of the above yet they dismissed it based on an error. That allows Giuliani to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Now if these Justices had granted Giuliani’s appeal motions, they would have sent it back to the lower court with instructions to allow the case to amend other material of fraud. THAT WOULD HAVE TAKE A WEEK TO TWO WEEKS.
So I see the denial of Giuliani’s motion as opening the door to the Supreme Court which is why it can be viewed as a favor.
Did Giuliani know this ahead of time? I think so. He’s been around a long, long time and he’s no dummy. He pretty much invented RICO and took down the Mob with it. So yeah, I would say he looked at the calendar and thought and thought how he could get the case to the US Supreme Court as fast as possible and his legal maneuvering produced the result he wanted.
Sometimes in the legal arena, you have to take it on the chin in order to let your opponent think you’re weak. Then when you’re ready to deliver the KO, they never expect it.
Thank you for your instructive reply. Your view makes what happened sensible. I agree. Don’t bring a pop-gun to a real firefight.
possibly relevant to this, see here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3910178/posts?page=43#43
and here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3910178/posts?page=49#49
GOD BE WITH THEM ALL!
Equal protection is a nonjustible political question?
That’s a big Amen!
Did Giuliani know this ahead of time? I think so.
Yes!
I’ve said six times what the remedies are. You don’t like them. Enjoy your tyranny
According to Ellis, in a tweet, fraud WAS part of the case.
I’m confused.
I thought the 2 main charges were equal protection and the part about observers.
I’m kinda confused.
I thought this was about equal protection and they’re asking for the counties that broke PA election law to be investigated.
No?
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.