Third Circuit rejecting the Trump campaign's appeal

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
Here is the unanimous, 21-page opinion by the Third Circuit rejecting the Trump campaign's appeal in the Pennsylvania case, written by (Trump appointee) Judge Bibas:

https://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trump.pdf…
10:31 AM · Nov 27, 2020

[servermsh]

1. It's wonderful! :)

[grumpyduck]

2. Wow, 21 pages just to tell them to

fuck off!

[Nevilledog]

3. You betcha

Link to tweet

[teach1st]

4. Judge who wrote the decision is a 2017 Trump appointee...all three judges are GOP

"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 opinion concludes:

Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. The ballots here are governed by Pennsylvania election law. No federal law requires poll watchers or specifies where they must live or how close they may stand when votes are counted. Nor does federal law govern whether to count ballots with minor state-law defects or let voters cure those defects. Those are all issues of state law, not ones that we can hear. And earlier lawsuits have rejected those claims.

Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile.

And there is no basis to grant the unprecedented injunction sought here. First, for the reasons already given, the Campaign is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Second, it shows no irreparable harm, offering specific challenges to many fewer ballots than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. Third, the Campaign is responsible for its delay and repetitive litigation. Finally, the public interest strongly favors finality, counting every lawful voter’s vote, and not disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvania voters who voted by mail. Plus, discarding those votes could disrupt every other election on the ballot.

We will thus affirm the District Court’s denial of leave to amend, and we deny an injunction pending appeal…

[Nevilledog]

5. Also brings up Giuliani said no fraud

[grumpyduck]

7. That decision was ON FIRE!

"But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold."

And these were Republican judges.

[Gothmog]

6. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has handed another loss to the Trump campaign'

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

8. Voters, not lawyers, choose the President

Prof. Hasen loves the last paragraphs of this ruling

Link to tweet

The opinion concludes:

Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. The ballots here are governed by Pennsylvania election law. No federal law requires poll watchers or specifies where they must live or how close they may stand when votes are counted. Nor does federal law govern whether to count ballots with minor state-law defects or let voters cure those defects. Those are all issues of state law, not ones that we can hear. And earlier lawsuits have rejected those claims.

Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile.

And there is no basis to grant the unprecedented injunction sought here. First, for the reasons already given, the Campaign is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Second, it shows no irreparable harm, offering specific challenges to many fewer ballots than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. Third, the Campaign is responsible for its delay and repetitive litigation. Finally, the public interest strongly favors finality, counting every lawful voter’s vote, and not disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvania voters who voted by mail. Plus, discarding those votes could disrupt every other election on the ballot.

We will thus affirm the District Court’s denial of leave to amend, and we deny an injunction pending appeal…

.

[Volaris]

9. How many ass kickings are his lawyers going to beg for, before some judge decides

To put someone's law licence in the shredder?

[MineralMan]

10. Sadly, they could not simple rule: "Pound Sand."

although that is the briefest way to paraphrase the ruling.

"Pound Sand, Trump Campaign! Pound Sand!"

[peggysue2]

11. Try though he might, Trump was unable to destroy our judiciary

And thank God for that. Our judiciary became the country's firewall without which we would have lost the Republic.

to all these judges, Dem and Republican alike, who held fast, protected the rule of law and ultimately the country.

Take that, AG Barr. Barr reminded everyone quite recently that the 'victors write the history.' In this case, our judges just wrote you off, as well as your lawlessness and slavish defense of Donald Trump and his fascist enablers.

[Gothmog]

12. From Marc Elias

Link to tweet

[rustysgurl]

13. Legal speak, in general, can be dry

as the Sahara, with one trying to weed through the words and phrases for what's actually being said. Whoever wrote this opinion is a master. I want to stand up and applaud.

[dware]

15. Believe it or not,

it was a Trump appointee.
How's that for irony?

[Gothmog]

14. Marc Elias is not tired of winning

Link to tweet