Judge: some mail-in ballots to be tossed in PA over ID requirements.

[JoliesLips 233]

Good! More lawsuits to came! It‘s not over yet! Trump will win

[Suuus 5,632]

13 minutes ago, JoliesLips said:

Good! More lawsuits to came! It‘s not over yet! Trump will win

I hope your joking

[bionic 50,111]

38 minutes ago, JoliesLips said:

Good! More lawsuits to came! It‘s not over yet! Trump will win

MAGA!

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Here's the other lawsuit: 

"Jones Day is representing the Pennsylvania GOP in pending litigation brought by private parties in April 2020 and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in August 2020. In that litigation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order extending the statutory deadline to return mail-in ballots established by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

The Republican Party of Pennsylvania, through Jones Day, has sought review in the United States Supreme Court on the ground that the order is unconstitutional because it usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to determine election procedures including the deadline for absentee ballots. The United States Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to grant certiorari. Four justices agreed with our client’s position, and voted to grant a stay, indicating that they believed there was a fair prospect of review and reversal by the Court. Three justices have issued a statement that there is "a strong likelihood that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order violates the U.S. Constitution." On November 6, Justice Alito ordered Pennsylvania election officials to segregate ballots arriving after the statutory deadline to preserve the issue and to have a record of the vote with and without the segregated ballots.

This case presents an important and recurring rule-of-law question under the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, on November 9, 17 states filed amicus briefs supporting this cert petition and asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review." 

https://www.jonesday.com/en/news/2020/11/jones-day-statement-regarding-election-litigation

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[caulixtla 2,170]

Again, the lawsuit in question here is: “Can we change election procedures before an election without the legislature signing off on it?” and the answer is up in the air (but, at least in Texas, a judge has said words to the effect of “People who have voted in good faith aren’t about to have their votes invalidated”). It’s an interesting legal question, but it’s not one which will affect the presidential election results.

Now, about that lawsuit trying to invalidate all mail in votes in PA: It’s dead. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/13/trump-law-firm-withdraws-pennsylvania-election-case

“Trump law firm withdraws from Pennsylvania case challenging election [...] A major law firm withdrew overnight from a Trump campaign case in Pennsylvania seeking to have mail-in ballots thrown out, in the latest blow to the president’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election result in court.”

The issue is this: For a lawsuit to be filed, it needs at least some basis in fact. Lawyers can get disbarred (unable to practice law any more) if they file lawsuits in bad faith (e.g. knowing the claims behind the lawsuit are malarkey).

(Yes, maybe Trump can get other two-bit lawyers to move forward with the case, but a case is really weak when lawyers will not accept good money to pull it forward. It’s going to get thrown out in court very quickly.)

[Lion Heart 15,041]

^Interesting. I just woke up so I need to catch up on all these cases.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,564]

This is all so embarrassing... @Trump

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

There's just so much going on.  

 

 

[caulixtla 2,170]

Washington Post says the Supreme Court is trying to avoid these frivolous lawsuits:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-trump-tax-returns-election-dispute/2020/11/13/2fc25b5a-252d-11eb-a688-5298ad5d580a_story.html

“Supreme Court goes idle on Trump-related disputes and time is running out”

“the justices appear to be taking their time during the president’s battle to dispute his election defeat — and maybe even allowing the clock to run out.

“I’m sure they do not relish the thought of Bush v. Gore II in any way, shape or form,” said Michael C. Dorf, a Cornell law professor who anchors a popular legal blog. He was referring to the court’s 5-to-4 decision in 2000 that essentially ended a stalemate over Florida’s presidential vote and cleared the way for George W. Bush to assume office.”

 

[Nemo 4,410]

12 hours ago, bionic said:

MAGA!