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 think he said this particular case was not about fraud. Rudy knows what he is doing.
Go straight to SC.
Poll: 79 Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen‘ https://t.co/PmMBmt05AI via @BreitbartNews They are 100% correct, but we are fighting hard. Our big lawsuit, which spells out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more, will soon be filled. RIGGED ELECTION!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 24, 2020
He's ALL about "the troll"...
I agree, this seems to be about those 10,000 votes that were illegal? The District Court said the same thing. Not enough bad ballots to justify disenfranchising 7 million voters. They lost the argument in District Court and now in the Appellate Court. What makes anyone believe the SCOTUS will buy this argument. I am not sure SCOTUS would even hear this case? What about the case if any about the SOS and Governor violating the State Constitution? If I understand correctly, to change a voting law under the PA Constitution there had to be a referendum. That seems to my non-legal mind a better case to toss 600,000 illegal mail in ballots.
Does not work that way. One cannot present new facts or new claims in SCOTUS.
So the 14th amendment is dead?
This is an opinion of a three judge panel, composed of two judges appointed by George W. Bush and one appointed by Donald Trump. Judge Bibas, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by President Trump.
But, but, but “THE JUDGES.” It was always a fools errand to think “Trump” judges alone are goimg to save this country from socialist ruin.
President Trump’s possibly only term in office has been stolen from us in a bipartisan coup and 70 million Trump voters have been disenfranchised.
Written by a Trump judge. Federalist Society conservative.
A first year law student would have given a better answer. The President deserves the best lawyers. He's had good lawyers. He had a great legal team with the Mueller hoax, etc. Rudy just isn't one.
Figure the Appeals court would do it since the majority is RATS. Onto the Supreme Court.
Rudy did not say that there was “no fraud”. He said THIS (meaning this one case) is not a fraud case. Simple case designed for quick answer.
If you win, then you don’t get to move up to SCOTUS. You go to the Supreme court by appealing a loss.
I never knew why they say Justice is blind. Until now.
You’re assuming that they will take the case.
SCOTUS, here we come!
I thought it was Heritage Foundation
Followed by countless posts declaring that ACB was blackmailed.
I have no clue why Trump hired him. Putting a guy in a courtroom in a high stakes case who hasn’t been in a courtroom in 40 years seems like maybe a bad idea?
No clue? Have you been asleep the past 4 years? Blacklisting and denying Trump effective subordinates has been a cornerstone of the bipartisan Never Trumpism.
“And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters.”
I am not bothered that the Court ruled against the suit. What worries me is that no fraud claims were presented. That is what this whole issue is about.
Can someone give me a clue?
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.