General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: Third Circuit upholds lower court's dismissal of Trump/Giuliani suit in Pennsylvania
And does so with no mercy ...
Oh - And the judge writing this scathing opinion was appointed by ... Wait for it ... Trump
Link to tweet
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 voters 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 Courts denial of leave to amend, and we deny an injunction pending appeal. The Campaign asked for a very fast briefing schedule, and we have granted its request.
Because the Campaign wants us to move as fast as possible, we also deny oral argument. We grant all motions to file overlength responses, to file amicus briefs, and to supplement appendices. We deny all other outstanding motions as moot. This Courts mandate shall issue at once.
mcar
(42,278 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Kudos!
-Laelth
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)sheshe2
(83,654 posts)Link to tweet
Three Republican-appointed judges, including the Trump appointee who wrote the opinion, are part of the "activist judicial machinery."
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)There are no legal issues of any weight here.
Not one, not two but three R appointees...and one was tRumps! You just cant make this shit up.
Kittycow
(2,396 posts)I like how oral arguments were denied because the plaintiffs wanted everything done ASAP They always seem to shoot themselves in the foot.
Thanks for posting the good news.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)"You want fast? Ok. Is this fast enough for you?"
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)This upholds that decision, however.
Response to greenjar_01 (Reply #8)
StarfishSaver This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,587 posts)mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)rustysgurl
(1,040 posts)(retired paralegal), but this is a thing of beauty -- best to be savored while sipping a favorite beverage in front of a warm fire. Dog in lap or at your feet optional (but adds to that cozy feeling).
Slapdown of epic proportions. I may take it out and read it over and over just to giggle once in a while.
Takket
(21,528 posts)"Your Honour, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth for all time."
"The Measure of a Man" (13 February 1989) by Melinda M. Snodgrass
And this is the problem drumpf can never solve......... hyperbole and literally just maknig shit up can be spewed all day and night at your rallies and for the white house press corp and on FauxNoise...... but in the court room, you actually have to present... something.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)Prof. Hasen loves the last paragraphs of this ruling
Link to tweet
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 voters 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 Courts denial of leave to amend, and we deny an injunction pending appeal