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

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.

Just for reference, the Distict Court's opinion in Wood v. Rafensperger, et al.:
The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are identical. Windsor v. United States , 379 F. App’x 912, 916–17 (11th Cir. 2010). To obtain either, Wood must demonstrate that (1) his claims have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the harm he will suffer in the absence of an injunction would exceed the harm suffered by Defendants if the injunction is issued; and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2002). The likelihood of success on the merits is generally considered the most important of the four factors. Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986).
A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites.” Siegel v. LePore , 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000).
...
Even if Wood could demonstrate a particularized injury through either his theory of vote dilution or disparate treatment, his claims are far too conclusive and speculative to satisfy Article III’s “concreteness” requirement. As previously noted, sufficiently pleading a non-speculative future injury requires Wood to show either that the threatened injury is “certainly impending” or that there is a “‘substantial risk’ that the harm will occur.” Susan B. Anthony List, 573 U.S. at 158 citing Clapper, 568 U.S. at 414 n.5).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3x31oj410o14jd/2020-12-28%20Order%20Denying%20Motion%20for%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20and%20Motion%20for%20Preservation%20-%20Wood%20v.%20Raffensperger%20et%20al.pdf?dl=0

To say that an injury could have been alleged, does not mean that there was a reasonable probability that it could be sustained. This case was in a different circuit, and the plaintiff was not the candidate, but the fact remains it needed to have been proved to a high level of certainty. Given the high hurdle of the legal requirements that need to be met for injunctions prior to an injury, a reasonable person would prefer to wait if possible to avoid unnecessary expense, etc., and an ethical attorney would delay filing the case as well. Courts are quite reluctant to encourage needless litigation. Considering that, for a court to claim that a candidate had an obligation to attempt such a feat is simply preposterous. Ordinary people see through the court's artiface.

Most Fed courts find that “voter dilution” does not give a voter standing to enjoin a state act. Wood’s lawsuit was frivolous on its face.

However, your blanket argument that “courts will not hear a pre-election challenge to a voting law” is simply false. State courts routinely hear challenges. Also, Fed courts hear them, where a Federal question and proper standing is presented.

Here is one decision, in Fed Court, handed down yesterday:

https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/show_temp.pl-2-1.pdf

True, the “case or controversy” requirement limit pre-election Fed Court lawsuits.

So what?

The Constitution grants states broad power to run elections, and if a specific Federal or Constitutional issue isn’t raised, candidates must seek redress in state court.

So, why weren’t any pre-election challenges made in state courts?

As I showed earlier, WI courts heard a pre-election challenge to improper voting procedures, and overturned it within days.

While emergency motions are, by definition, rushed, that is no excuse for the garbage filed by the gang that couldn’t sue straight. If an “expert” purports to do analysis of voter counties in MI, but his analysis is on counties in MN, the expert is an idiot, and the lawyer is incompetent for failing to check his work.

When someone files an election challenge complaint in the Federal Claims Court, he is an idiot. When he tries to defend it by lying (”ECF system made a mistake”) he is a lying idiot.

Moving on ...

Court challenges are not the only remedy. How about legislative challenges? Why weren’t any pre-election political pressure put on state legislatures?

You should stick to drafting living trusts. Your opinions on litigation is as misguided as the nonsense peddled by the gang that could not sue straight. You don’t understand that the “case or controversy” requirement is actually a 4-prong test. You confuse the ripeness prong with the proof required for a preliminary injunction. And your blanket accusation of corruption in 60 different courts is an insult to the judiciary of our nation.

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.
-Dr. Franklin

However, your blanket argument that “courts will not hear a pre-election challenge to a voting law” is simply false. State courts routinely hear challenges. Also, Fed courts hear them, where a Federal question and proper standing is presented.
-God_Country_Trump_Guns

Obviously, that's not what I wrote. Don't let my actual words get in the way of your straw man arguments. It's what you do here.

Here is one decision, in Fed Court, handed down yesterday: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/show_temp.pl-2-1.pdf

WOW! Stacy Abrams has a sister who is judge who ruled that even though GA permits provisional ballots, the voting rolls can't be purged so the Dem machine can vote for dead people in the Jan. 5th election. That ruling exemplifies what the problem it: Dems filed hundreds of lawsuits to weaken laws intended to prevent voting fraud, as they did in GA, but even when Republicans win the argument that the election was conducted illegally, as in WI, they are denied an effective remedy making the right worthless, and the election a sham. That judge's opinion proves nothing other than how political the courts have become, and that these legal "tests" to which you refer, are simply rationalizations for a predetermined result, rather than an actual explanation of the courts' opinions.

True, the “case or controversy” requirement limit pre-election Fed Court lawsuits. So what?

So it is unreasonable to require a candidate to file a lawsuit in federal court before he/she is injured in an illegal or fraudulent election.

The Constitution grants states broad power to run elections, and if a specific Federal or Constitutional issue isn't raised, candidates must seek redress in state court.

False statement. The U.S. Constitution grants the power to appoint presidential electors to the state legislatures, not the states. So changes to laws enacted by the legislature by either the courts or the state judiciary violate the U.S. Constitution. Prof. Dershowitz expects Trump can win both PA and WI at SCOTUS if these cases are decided in a timely manner.

So, why weren't any pre-election challenges made in state courts?

There you go again making things up like a typical troll. False premise to the question. Mark Jefferson and the RepublicanParty of Wisconsin v. Dane County, Wisconsin and Scott McDonell in his official capacity as Dane County Clerk was filed well before the election. SCOWI held oral argument on Sept. 29, 2020 but failed to issue a ruling until well after the election. Why was that not done in a timely manner to ensure a fair election? The party's suit was clearly brought on behalf of their candidates, including those for presidential electors. Trump also filed a case that went all the way up to SCOTUS in which CJ Roberts refused to grant relief prospectively in PA. People were clearly on notice that failing to conduct elections lawfully according to the laws the legislature passed would result in further litigation.

Court challenges are not the only remedy. How about legislative challenges? Why weren't any pre-election political pressure put on state legislatures?

More trolling. Judicial review can be sought to review certain legislative or executive actions. When the executive branch fails to follow the statutory law because it doesn't like it, the remedy is normally judicial. If the executive branch refuses to comply with the old laws, why should anyone expect that they will comply with new laws? The legislative remedy for failed presidential elections is the direct appointment of the electors by the legislature, which may yet happen.

Your opinions on litigation is as misguided as the nonsense peddled by the gang that could not sue straight.

My opinion of the WI case is shared by the CJ, and two other dissenting judges. Their opinion was quite well reasoned and in line with the constitutional duty of courts to actually decide election problems, and contains a very good explanation of why the equitable defense of laches was completely inappropriate, novel and political.

You don't understand that the “case or controversy” requirement is actually a 4-prong test. You confuse the ripeness prong with the proof required for a preliminary injunction.

Again, these "tests" to which you refer are actually rationalizations after the fact for the personal preferences of the judges. Only fools believe otherwise about these election cases.

And your blanket accusation of corruption in 60 different courts is an insult to the judiciary of our nation.

The judiciary of the nation are elitists who have made a mockery of the foundation of the Republic: one person, one vote. When that is gone, so too is the law, and we return to a state more primitive and violent. Rights without effective remedies are not actually rights.

Let me distill your argument:

1- No Federal judge would have recognized a case or controversy in any pre-election challenge brought by PDJT,

2- No State judge would have granted meaningful relief in any pre-election challenge brought by PDJT,

3- No pre-election political procedure by PDJT would have been successful,

4- IN CONCLUSION, our only remedy is through armed rebellion.

Count me out.

I reject 1 through 4. Properly drafted and meritorious complaints and political pressure before the election could have accomplished much.

Post Script 1: Dershowitz is probably right. While state legislatures are granted broad discretion in running elections, judicial intervention may violate the Constitution, to the extent it exceeds judiciary’s authority to interpret an ambiguity in law. The problem is, the number of ballots that is the subject of that challenge is not enough to sway the PA results.

Post Script 2: When an attorney files a complaint nominally on behalf of a plaintiff without that plaintiff’s permission, that attorney needs to be disbarred.

Post Script 3: When an attorney communicates, by tweet, with a court where he may be arguing a case, that attorney needs to be disbarred.

Post Script 4: I’m pretty sure Epstein is dead.

Let me ~~distill~~ distort and change your argument:

Well, there you go again. That's what you do here. The idea is to actually address the facts, opinions, and arguments made, rather than to set up straw men to knock down. If you could distill alcohol you could actually make some money, but do get the right licenses and permits for that.

1- No Federal judge would have recognized a case or controversy in any pre-election challenge brought by PDJT,

Since four SCOTUS justices did, that is purely BS, and you know it.

2- No State judge would have granted meaningful relief in any pre-election challenge brought by PDJT,

More BS. POTUS wasn't trying to change state statutory election laws anywhere to be replaced by executive or judicial fiat. In PA he was defending against that in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar. That case was filed in PA Commonwealth Court and removed to SCOPA because the lower court was not trusted by the Dems to give them what they wanted. That court was also reversed twice after the election by SCOPA when it agreed with Republicans. Two Republican judges on SCOPA consistently voted against the Dems and in favor of POTUS. Certainly in other Red states, the judiciary wouldn't have permitted any nonsense. Don't let the fats get in the way of your propaganda. It is just more pettifogging. It's what you do here.

3- No pre-election political procedure by PDJT would have been successful,

Irrelevant. Again, POTUS wasn't trying to change state statutory election laws anywhere to be replaced by executive or judicial fiat. You're just blowing smoke.

4- IN CONCLUSION, our only remedy is through armed rebellion.

WOW! That is twisted. The fraudulent election is a "color revolution". Using the Insurrection Act to defend the Republic is perfectly constitutional and the obligation of POTUS.

I reject 1 through 4.

First you created them, now you reject them. This is called trolling...

Count me out.

Stop trolling and go back to DU!

Post Script 1: Dershowitz is probably right. While state legislatures are granted broad discretion in running elections, judicial intervention may violate the Constitution, to the extent it exceeds judiciary’s authority to interpret an ambiguity in law. The problem is, the number of ballots that is the subject of that challenge is not enough to sway the PA results.

Take it up with Dershowitz. He doesn't need me, or anyone else here, to defend his opinions. The issue in PA at SCOTUS is more than just the 3 day extension to receive ballots, and since they refused to permit the poll watchers to see anything, they would need to prove they didn't count votes received after election day. There are also issues about unattended drop boxes, curing ballots, etc. mandated by SCOPA contrary to statute:
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-96-2020mo%20-%20104548450113066639.pdf?cb=1

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.