7th Circuit tosses Trump election case, affirming lower court's decision

Citizen Free Press ^ | 12/25/2020

[PeterPrinciple]

I think it is time to amend the Constitution and grant to the Federal government the right to run elections. That way, Federal law enforcement and Federal courts would have jurisdiction.

---

Yep, that will fix it. another law. Sometimes I wonder what is the difference between libs and conservatives.

Corruptions is the nature of man. Our founding fathers knew this and put the power in the hands of local people where we can control it.

Do you really want the federal government in control of the problem? I would like an answer to the question.

[Vermont Lt]

The last thing we want is some group of federal hacks running the states’ elections.

[right way right]

No way.

This nation needs to be run by a moral people.

Now, moral people are just run over.

The evil needs to be killed, sent to judgement.

Government is Godless.

[D Rider]

Fraud is not in the constitutional framework, it is a violation of a basic tenant of our constitution. But the remedy is in the constitution and when all else fails, state houses, Congress, and courts, it lies with the people, if they have the courage.

[ZULU]

I agree. The GOP is morally bankrupt.
It needs to be destroyed and replaced.

But its very, very, very, hard to do something like that.

Both parties have a total lock on the electoral process.

Both parties have high rollers backing them.
Both parties have committed followers

At this point, I would say the GOP is the more fragile of the two. They have consistently betrayed and failed to deliver for their constituency. They are as corrupt as the Democrats. But at least the Democrats support a political policy that appeals to their constituents and effectively run with it.

I hope PDJT starts his own party if he indeed looses. I would join it.

Unfortunately I do not share your assessment of the Courts. Your legal analysis in this situation is convincing. But there are far too many other incidents of rogue judges and prosecutors

[ZULU]

I agree. The GOP is morally bankrupt.
It needs to be destroyed and replaced.

But its very, very, very, hard to do something like that.

Both parties have a total lock on the electoral process.

Both parties have high rollers backing them.
Both parties have committed followers

At this point, I would say the GOP is the more fragile of the two. They have consistently betrayed and failed to deliver for their constituency. They are as corrupt as the Democrats. But at least the Democrats support a political policy that appeals to their constituents and effectively run with it.

I hope PDJT starts his own party if he indeed looses. I would join it.

Unfortunately I do not share your assessment of the Courts. Your legal analysis in this situation is convincing. But there are far too many other incidents of rogue judges and prosecutors

[central_va]

Don’t give any GOPers hope post Trump. Convince them the GOP is dead. I will vote for the challenger in the GOP primary and them sit out the general. I do not see the new party forming quickly unless Trump does it. It make take a while but it will happen. Starve the GOP. Those GD globalist backstabbers. I am sick of them all.

[God_Country_Trump_Guns]

Just thinking out loud ...

I really don’t see fraud on the Constitution here. As drafted, the Constitution would allow state legislatures to appoint electors who vote for Che Guevara as President.

And that would be within their Constitutional power.

Furthermore, while the Constitution mandates that the States shall have a Republican form of government, there is no Constitutional mandate that the state legislators actually represent the will of the general populace.

So, in theory, and so long as Amendments 15, 19, 24 and 26 are honored, states can pass a law that says only citizens with have earned a PhD in Communist studies can vote.

That’s just how the Constitution was written. Sure, it’s imperfect. But we have relied on tradition, unwritten rules, and the states’ commitment to will of the populace. Additionally, the amendment process provides a safety valve - which brings me to the next point.

I just think if we want to prevent the states from messing around with elections, and if we want the elected officials to represent the will of the people, rather than the will of the politicians, then we should have uniform rules for elections.

And it seems to me that the only way to guarantee that is by granting the Federal government the right to regulate elections.

Given the current state of the Constitution, the TX lawsuit seeking to overturn election results in PA, GA, WI, AZ, and MI was frivolous on its face, and SCOTUS was 100% correct in summarily rejecting the lawsuit.

[PeterPrinciple]

And it seems to me that the only way to guarantee that is by granting the Federal government the right to regulate elections.

---

Guarantee? I just reminded you of the nature of man and what our founders thought to be the best solution. You want to give the federal government more power? That is your solution? There is no hope for us.

[Jyotishi]

“Yep. We are officially a corrupt third world country now. 😒”

😒😒😒

[funfan]

And the old parties will use fraud voting and continue to be in office forever until they retire or die but. Although I believe there will only be one party that wins the Democrats.

There will longer be free and fair elections we will become like Venezuela.

[ZULU]

Me too

[Eagle Forgotten]

God_Country_Trump_Guns writes: “My advice: abandon both parties. I want to see a third party make a STRONG showing in the next election.”

I used to be interested in the third-party idea but doubtful it would work. In the last couple years I’ve become more open to it.

Since Nov. 3, every day brings me closer to it. In this hour of crisis, the Republican Party has been largely useless or (more often) actively harmful. Only a few honorable exceptions.

Yes, if President Trump starts a third party, we should join. But maybe we fight on two fronts at once. President Trump, referring to Jan. 6 and then to the 2022 primaries, still tries to work within the GOP. Meanwhile, his allies could be doing the spadework to have a third party up and running and ready for him. If he finally gives up on the GOP he shouldn’t have to start from scratch.

[M Kehoe]

Hi.

“The court said President Trump had a full opportunity before the election to challenge Wisconsin law.”

in the fwiw department, president Trump DID file suit on this issue, and was thrown out due to lack of standing. (No tort had occurred, yet).

F’em.

5.56mm

[Dr. Franklin]

I read the opinion, and I think the unreasonable delay basis is well-reasoned. You can't wait until after a law is enacted, and people rely upon it and cast their votes, to come in and overturn it.

I read the opinion too. As an LL.M., the first error I noticed is that court wrote that governor certified Biden's electors and sent them to the National Archives. According to the Twelfth Amendment, they should be sent to VPOTUS, as he administers the election and presides over the joint session of Congress to count the votes. Sending a list of electors to the National Archives does not follow the Constitution. To the extent the statutory scheme differs from the constitution, VPOTUS may have discretion to refuse to accept the electors.

The three judge panel based its opinion on two main points: 1) laches, and 2) the Electors Clause.

Laches is, of course, an equitable defense. Its usage in election law is Twilight Zone bizarro since it is based on moral obligations and appeals to conscience. Challenges before an election is certified would be speculative, premature, and thus "unripe" if not an actual "case or controversy" under Article III, but two days after it is certified is barred by laches? Through its actions, this court has undermined confidence in free and fair elections.

Furthermore, U.S. election law is extremely tolerant of fraud in elections. To win an election challenge, the plaintiff must prove not just that there was fraud or a legal error running the election, but in addition, that it affected the result of the election. Obviously, the extent of the fraud can't be known before the result and until it's certified. The court employed circuitous logic here. According to this opinion, all problems with elections must be litigated in advance based on the mere possibility that they may affect the election. If this is the "law", then courts will now have their dockets filled with election litigation before the voting starts. The obvious "public policy" argument is that this a waste of judicial resources. I reasonable person can easily conclude that this new policy was specifically tailored to deny President Trump reelection. This was simple malfeasance.

The second basis is the Electors Clause. At the start of its discussion of that issue the court wrote:
Defining the precise contours of the Electors Clause is a difficult endeavor. The text seems to point to at least two constructions, and the case law interpreting or applying the Clause is sparse. This case does not require us to answer the question, as the Commission's guidance did not amount to a violation under the two most likely interpretations
So assuming that the court is right about what the "most likely interpretations" are, where is the discussion of the third? Certainly, one very important reason that there is "sparse" case law on the Electors Clause, despite the fact that at least four justices at SCOTUS have voted to hear these cases and resolve the matter, is that CJ Roberts refuses to schedule the matter until after it is likely moot. He could be impeached for that. This court then concluded, "whatever actions the Commission took here, it took under color of authority expressly granted to it by the Legislature. And that authority is not diminished by allegations that the Commission erred in its exercise." In other words, we don't care if the Commission got it wrong. The court then cited the WI state case that Trump lost on laches as if it were an adjudication on the merits of the case under state law. Laches is not a decision on the merits, it is dishonest for the court to cite it as if it were.

Again, why didn't PDJT’s staff advise him to fight the state changes to election procedure BEFORE the election? PDJT has consistently been able to draw upon his unprecedented popularity to affect policy. Why wasn't he encouraged to step in?

For whatever reason, the new guidance was NOT challenged until AFTER the election. Why?

Overall, looking at these election cases, I think the cases are largely well-reasoned. I think waiting until AFTER the election and then running to court willy-nilly was a very poor tactic. I am also bothered that we are told that PDJT’s attorneys are alleging fraud, when, in fact, almost all of these cases seek to overturn results on legal technicalities.

Again, why didn't PDJT’s staff advise him to fight the state changes to election procedure BEFORE the election? PDJT has consistently been able to draw upon his unprecedented popularity to affect policy. Why wasn't he encouraged to step in?

The obvious answer is that Trump was the Republican nominee for reelection as POTUS, and the Republican Party litigated the issue successfully both before and after the election on his behalf, and other candidates. The fact that the party won a lawsuit once, and then the state administrators ignored that ruling, requiring a second round of litigation doesn't change the matter. This is called "lawfare", the practice of powerful people ignoring the law hoping that some corrupt court will manufacture an excuse for them to do whatever they want. "Laches" is exactly that. The better question is, Why should any candidate need to compel those acting under color of state authority to simply not ignore the election laws? Unlike your rhetorical questions, that is the heart of the matter.

Also, why didn't McConnell allow debates and votes on the various election security bills that were left dormant in the Senate?

Because McConnell is corrupt and taking money from voting machine companies, and he doesn't want Trump reelected.

I really don't see fraud on the Constitution here. As drafted, the Constitution would allow state legislatures to appoint electors who vote for Che Guevara as President.

Che Guevara was never a U.S. citizen, and he is also quite dead. As such he is ineligible to serve as POTUS, and any vote for him would clearly be illegal. State legislators may yet directly appoint electors themselves before Jan. 6th, if not decertify slates of electors certified by their governor.

You are actively engaged in blaming the victims here, and the victims are the millions who voted for Trump. It's the kind of thing that sleazy lawyers do, and you really should be ashamed of yourself, but aren't. Remember what Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI about lawyers? If people like you keep pettifogging and writing nonsense to attempt to justify what is unjust, things may happen that you don't anticipate.

[God_Country_Trump_Guns]

It is simply FALSE that courts do not review pre-election challenges to election procedures. Just look at my post #36 in this thread.

The argument that “we could not have alleged actual injury before the election” is one made by people like you, second-guessing bad tactics. It is not only purely speculative, but also, false.

The laches argument is valid here. You can’t wait until after a law is passed, and a bunch of law-abiding citizens use the law to cast their votes, and then go to court to challenge it.

At least, if PDJT’s attorneys had challenged the law pre-election and failed, they could have attacked the laches defense in any post-election challenge. But they didn’t challenge the law pre-election. Therefore, they could not defeat the laches defense in their tardy, post-election challenge. A wise lawyer would never argue “your honor, we did not challenge this law pre-election because we presume to know how you would have ruled.”

It is a silly argument, never made in court by wise lawyers. But it is made extensively by anonymous would-be lawyers in this and other chatrooms.

Your argument that a SCOTUS justice can be impeached for ruling in a manner not to your liking is outlandish. Again, it is an argument whose only habitat is anonymous chatrooms, and will quickly perish outside this habitat. No legitimate Constitutional scholar will endorse your experimental interpretation.

My comment about Che Guevara is, clearly, a symbolic point, not to be taken seriously by any wise reader. I wanted to put down “Ilhan Omar” but then went even more extreme. Not surprisingly, you missed the point, as you missed the rest of the points in my post and in my thread and in the opinions drafted by a Trump-appointed Circuit Court judge.

The rest of your post does not merit a response.

Congratulations on your LLM. Clearly it is in some specialized, non-Constitutional field, such as estate planning.

[frog in a pot]

Don’t shoot the messenger. You will not like what I am about to say.

Nonetheless, you took some shots and you were certainly correct with the latter.

I submit the ill will directed your way was because anyone who read a few of your most recent posts first, as I did, or read the first sentence in your About page, could easily imagine you were a senior partner at Perkins Coie.

(For the casual reader’s benefit, PC is the go-to law firm for the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, etc. The firm recently represented or used as a "front" in order to informally change GA election law none other than, Stacy “of-course-we-will-take-your-guns" Abrams. The whole Anita Dunn, Bob Bauer element is for another thread.)

You had the gall to suggest Trump’s legal team included incompetent “bozo’s" who appeared close to professionally negligent (my words), that the bulk of the Republican party was lying to us, especially RINO’s, and you discounted pretty much to zero Trump's chances of prevailing either at the USSC or any other federal court or his chances (as it stands at the moment) at the upcoming Jan 6 Joint Session.

Ironically, you stated no more than what many of us already believe: that much should have been done about potential election fraud prior to November 3, that the bulk of the Republican party has moved contrary to the will of its supporters and voters, that Team Trump should have been limited to competent federal court litigators led by Sidney Powell, to name a few.

For a good number of us, you presented a Lady or Tiger portrait, which is often how the truth appears.

I would strongly recommend that any FReeper who questions whether your offerings are sincere and not those of a troll, would do themselves a favor by reading your posts from the beginning before deciding.

IMO, your thoughts bring bring knowledge and clarity to the discussion.

[God_Country_Trump_Guns]

I am not a partner in PC or any top tier law firm. Didn’t go to a top tier law school, and never worked in a top tier firm. In fact, I never worked for a law firm with more than a dozen attorneys.

I’m curious as to WHY you imagine I am a partner at PC, but I am sure your answer will be in the lines of “you use correct grammar and you say things I don’t like, so you MUST be in bed with HRC.”

I am neither a Constitutional law nor election law attorney, and disclosed this early on.

As far as the humiliating performance by Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, Wood, and the rest, you need only to look at what they delivered (exactly nothing) and also, what they filed with the courts.

In my posts, I laid out some of the many embarrassing mistakes they made. Yes, there were typos. But there were also asking a WI court to issue an order to seize assets in MI. There was appellate briefs not timely filed. It was failing to submit depo transcripts. Any objective research will convince any unbiased reader that the PDJT’s legal team was either incompetent or malevolent.

Wood was a defamation lawyer. Giuliani and Powell were Federal prosecutors. How often does an attorney prosecuting criminals have occasion to challenge Constitutionality of election statutes? Ellis has never been attorney of record in a Fed case. William Bock is an athletics and drug test attorney. Linda Kerns is a solo-practitioner whose website advertises her expertise in custody and child support law.

You may be happy with the performance of the gang that could not sue straight. I’m not.

I am of the opinion that only a whiner keeps blaming the courts in face of dozens of losses. One loss? Sure. Two? Yeah. Three? Four? Five? OK, maybe. But some 60 losses at trial courts, appeal courts, Supreme Courts, in Federal and State systems, in 5 states? And zero substantive wins? All those courts are corrupt? People who say this have been hanging out with the “9/11 was inside job and moon landing was fake” crowd.

You want to praise Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, Wood, Bock and Kerns for telling you what you like to hear as they flail around in court? Be my guest. It is, still, a free country.

[Dr. Franklin]

It is simply FALSE that courts do not review pre-election challenges to election procedures. Just look at my post #36 in this thread.

Nice straw man argument. The issue here is the Article III jurisdiction of the federal courts which requires a case or controversy, and would likely have found that a claim wasn't ripe for decision before an actual injury. You then cite state courts in WI which both before and after the election ruled against the Dems deviating from statutory law. Yet, WI's Supreme Court permitted the results to stand for the election. It doesn't get any stranger than that.

The argument that “we could not have alleged actual injury before the election” is one made by people like you, second-guessing bad tactics. It is not only purely speculative, but also, false.

The laches argument is valid here. You can’t wait until after a law is passed, and a bunch of law-abiding citizens use the law to cast their votes, and then go to court to challenge it.

Sorry, you are quite mistaken. I didn't go to court to challenge the law. The Republican Party and POTUS did. The excuse that "law-abiding citizens" cast lawful votes, ignores the fact that unlawful, if not fraudulent, votes were cast that negated the will of those lawful voters. If the court couldn't fashion a remedy of discarding mail-in ballots even though we all know that they favored one candidate in a statistically fantastic manner and was done for an obvious purpose, then the remedy of a revote was/is available. That wasn't ordered due to the political preference of these judges. Those who lack "clean hands" ought not to be rewarded with a laches defense. Having lost once in state court, they plainly shouldn't have been permitted to do the same thing again, and benefit from it, but they were.

A wise lawyer would never argue “your honor, we did not challenge this law pre-election because we presume to know how you would have ruled.” CJ Roberts refuses to schedule the matter until after it is likely moot. He could be impeached for that.

Another straw man argument. In this case, POTUS had no reason to challenge the election procedures because the Dems already had lost that argument before the state court. POTUS not having joined the second state Republican Party suit was not the reason this case was lost. it's just a poor excuse for the court's inaction, and most everyone on this site doesn't find it believable. Furthermore, this case is about the jurisdiction of the federal court, which is a different issue from the broader jurisdiction of the state courts. Here, a federal court claims the matter needed to have been relitigated in state court by POTUS, not his party before it could be brought in federal court. Equitably, It makes no difference which party brought the suit, the defendants where on notice their policies were wrong, especially after the lost the argument once in state court. A laches defense here simply demonstrates the political leanings of the court. They don't want to decide the issues.

Your argument that a SCOTUS justice can be impeached for ruling in a manner not to your liking is outlandish.

Wow! Yet another straw man argument. I wrote, "CJ Roberts refuses to schedule the matter until after it is likely moot. He could be impeached for that." So, this isn't about a SCOTUS justice giving an opinion. The issue is the Chief Justice of SCOTUS knowing that he is in the minority on the court in a legal issue affecting a presidential election and refusing to schedule the arguments and hearing in a timely manner such that it could become moot before the rest of the court can rule on it. I submit that he could be impeached for violating his oath of office. This is for Congress to decide. If the rumors that he is on tape stating hostility towards Trump's reelection are true, impeachment may be the least of his worries.

Congratulations on your LLM.

Thanks. It's more than most American law professors have, and probably the judges who issued this embarrassment of an opinion. Let us all know when you get an advanced law degree. It might improve your legal analysis.

I’m an attorney with over a dozen years of nothing but Fed Court experience. I do not do Constitutional or election law, but...

Yes, it clearly shows.

[Dr. Franklin]

As far as the humiliating performance by Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, Wood, and the rest, you need only to look at what they delivered (exactly nothing) and also, what they filed with the courts. In my posts, I laid out some of the many embarrassing mistakes they made. Yes, there were typos. But there were also asking a WI court to issue an order to seize assets in MI. There was appellate briefs not timely filed. It was failing to submit depo transcripts. Any objective research will convince any unbiased reader that the PDJT’s legal team was either incompetent or malevolent. Wood was a defamation lawyer. Giuliani and Powell were Federal prosecutors. How often does an attorney prosecuting criminals have occasion to challenge Constitutionality of election statutes? Ellis has never been attorney of record in a Fed case. William Bock is an athletics and drug test attorney. Linda Kerns is a solo-practitioner whose website advertises her expertise in custody and child support law.

This is simple scapegoating. The 2020 election involves election fraud and illegal voting on a massive scale never before seen, using every means possible to cheat, including computer servers in foreign countries, ballots printed abroad, etc. Emergency motions are rushed by nature, and frequently have errors, not common in appellate briefs with months to prepare. Large law firms refused to represent POTUS for political reasons. That is quite damning of the elites of the legal profession. He therefore went with attorneys with guts willing to pursue the claims. They include Giuliani and Powell who are former federal prosecutors who likely did handle small scale voter fraud cases. They certainly did handle large scale organized crime, which this certainly was.

Harvard constitutional law prof. Alan Dershowitz opines that if SCOTUS hears the case and permits a meaningful adjudication that Trump will win in PA and possibly elsewhere. Trump's attorneys can do nothing to compel CJ Roberts to give the case a timely hearing such that it doesn't become moot. Without those precedents, cases in the lower courts become more difficult. Blaming Trump's attorneys for that dysfunction is simply scapegoating. They are giving a good effort despite hostile courts, and that should be applauded. It is always easy to criticize those "in the ring" fighting for justice anonymously behind a keyboard on the Internet. Too many attorneys are more interested in currying favor with judges than demanding justice when judges are corrupt, incompetent, etc. As the Greeks say a fist starts to rot from the head first.