Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump loses again in court (PA appeal) (Original Post) servermsh Nov 2020 OP
He apparently has a need to reinforce his LOSER status. Sneederbunk Nov 2020 #1
So much WINNING!!! Kaleva Nov 2020 #2
Definitely tired of all the winning 🤣 lisa58 Nov 2020 #3
Mrc Elias is not tired of winning Gothmog Nov 2020 #7
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has handed another loss to the Trump campaign' Gothmog Nov 2020 #4
Voters, not lawyers, choose the President Gothmog Nov 2020 #5
From Marc Elias Gothmog Nov 2020 #6

Gothmog

(143,654 posts)
5. Voters, not lawyers, choose the President
Fri Nov 27, 2020, 02:10 PM
Nov 2020

Prof. Hasen loves the last paragraphs of this ruling




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…
.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump loses again in cour...