🚨NEW: AZ GOP ask the Supreme Court to review the dismissal of their state court election contest

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
🚨NEW: Arizona Republicans ask the Supreme Court to review the dismissal of their state court election contest.

Another misuse of the federal court system to achieve a political aim. Shameful.

Trump and his allies remain 1-56 in post-election litigation.

🚨ALERT: AZ REPUBLICANS SEEK SCOTUS REVIEW
Republicans seek SCOTUS review of failed election contest in Arizona.
democracydocket.com

[onecaliberal]

1. WHEN is this going to end? At what point do the courts say NO.

[Ms. Toad]

3. They've been saying "No." 56 times, and counting. n/t

[onecaliberal]

8. Yes, you're not wrong. Are they just going to be allowed to continue to file the same crap time and

time again when everyone knows it's nothing more than a temper tantrum from sore losers?

[Ms. Toad]

12. Unfortunately, yes.

Anyone who's worked in a court know there is a ton of crap filed. If you pay the filing fee, you can file it. The court has to deal with it.

At some point, individual courts may have the option of declaring the filer a vexatious litigator (Here's how Ohio does it: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/vexatious/)

But it's on a court-by-court basis, and litigator by litigator basis. One of the challenges in all of theses 50+ suits is they have been filed in multiple courts, in multiple jurisdictions, by different parties.

A vexatious litigator (in Ohio):

"Vexatious litigator" means any person who has habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct in a civil action or actions, whether in the court of claims or in a court of appeals, court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court, whether the person or another person instituted the civil action or actions, and whether the vexatious conduct was against the same party or against different parties in the civil action or actions. "Vexatious litigator" does not include a person who is authorized to practice law in the courts of this state under the Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio unless that person is representing or has represented self pro se in the civil action or actions.

Since it's not always the same party bringing the claim, not always in teh same court, it is pretty challenging to rise to the level of a vexatious litigator - even though (as a whole) it certainly looks that way.

(As someone who drafted state appellate orders, I can tell you that spaghetti against the wall cases like this are the hardest to put to bed. Even though it is clear they are nonsense, you have to address and meticulously smack down each layer of nonsense or risk having it come back to bite you from the next level up.)

[onecaliberal]

13. Theater of the absurd. Thank you for the very detailed explanation. I certainly

learned a few things.

[AngryOldDem]

7. It's time to just issue a ruling that no further suits will be considered. Period.

This is just harrassment now, and a waste of the courts’ time. Not to mention the money that is being absolutely wasted on this nonsense when states have to rebut it.

And again — sanction everyone involved. Up and including suspension of law licenses and disbarrment.

This HAS to stop. There is no “there” there.

[onecaliberal]

9. So much that!

[Pantagruel]

2. Another fundraising excuse

Gotta keep the donors hoping...

[gab13by13]

4. Have to start taking legal action,

for their filing so many frivolous law suits.

Funny isn't it, now that they have a partisan Supreme Court, they want all cases to go there. Wonder why they are waiting to criminalize abortion? Oh yeah, then they wouldn't be able to campaign on it.

[C_U_L8R]

5. The state is seeking legal fees

The court should multiply that for this frivolous waste of their time.

[Kablooie]

10. Republicans should be forced to pay for all the legal fees

Each claim takes a lot of legal time just to write up a legal response. Republicans should have to pay for all the time spent reading and writing responses.

But of course they won’t. It won’t cost them anything to splatter these frivolous seditious lawsuits around everywhere. And that’s the problem.

[ScratchCat]

11. The SCOTUS doesn't review

State Court decisions and dismissals. This was thrown out by the Arizona high court. The SCOTUS isn't going to take this, hear it, decide against Arizona and make the Arizona court hear the case next year(and yes, it takes that long). WTF is wrong with these people?