High court declines to take up Sanders supporters' lawsuit (from 2016)

[question everything]

Source: Yahoo (AP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is declining to revive a lawsuit by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders who sued the Democratic National Committee in 2016 over claims officials improperly tipped the scales for Hillary Clinton during the nominating process. The justices said Monday they would not take up the lawsuit. As is usual the court did not comment in turning away the case.

The lawsuit was filed after leaked DNC emails suggested Democratic party officials had favored Clinton over the Vermont senator during the primaries. The emails were posted on the document disclosure website WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks did not say who provided the material, but 12 Russian military intelligence officers were ultimately indicted in connection with the DNC hack and hacking of the Clinton presidential campaign.

According to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the release was part of a sweeping conspiracy by Russia to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.

DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation following the leaks. The lawsuit by Sanders supporters was dismissed at an early stage and an appeals court had upheld the dismissal.


Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-court-declines-sanders-supporters-135358135.html

[videohead5]

1. I still can't figure out

What they think the DNC did that got Hillary 4 million more votes than Bernie. The DNC did not run any ads for Hillary even if they wanted to they could not they were broke. Bernie even had more money than Hillary. The DNC had very little influence over voters.

[SunSeeker]

2. I thought this lawsuit was dismissed. Can't believe they pursued it to SCOTUS.

I wish this was the end of this foolishness, but I'm sure the conspiracy theories will continue.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. The Court has enough partisan leanings here or there

They clearly don't intend to be an arbiter of state election policy and don't want a lot to do with ruling within parties. If they went down that path it would open an endless stream of litigation about procedures etc. I know it's not what a lot of us want to hear, but it is practical.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Who actually continued to pursue this?

[Fullduplexxx]

5. Russia directly or indirectly

[onetexan]

6. petty and stupid

[Sloumeau]

7. Thank God. This was a load of nonsense.

From more than a year before the Democratic National Convention, Hillary always led in the polls. Bernie also had big problems winning non-Caucus states and those states that had any significant percentage of people of color. Bernie was never going to win the 2016 Democratic Primary for President.

[ehrnst]

9. +1000. (nt)

[lapucelle]

17. Here's a link to the appellate court ruling.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201714194.pdf

[NurseJackie]

25. Summing it all up...

... But federal courts can only adjudicate cognizable claims, and the complaint here fails on a number of jurisdictional and substantive grounds.

29 The district court’s order of dismissal is affirmed, but the case is remanded so that the district court can amend its order consistent with our opinion. The order should dismiss the fraud, negligent misrepresentation, CPPA, and unjust enrichment claims—which fail on the merits—with prejudice, and dismiss the negligence and fiduciary duty claims—which fail for lack of standing—without prejudice.

[Cha]

13. Mahalo, Sloumeau.. Good to see you

Again!

[Sloumeau]

15. Mahalo, Cha! A new national poll released today shows Biden up by 15 points! :) nt

[Cha]

16. May it only grow and Stay Strong!

Thank you!

[betsuni]

8. That was a massively stupid conspiracy theory.

[still_one]

10. +++

[NurseJackie]

11. Well...

(That's all, just a pregnant "well" with ellipses. Nothing more needs to be said for obvious reasons, so I'll just leave it at that.)

[betsuni]

18. Yes, a pregnant "well" with ellipses is really all that needs to be said.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Yup.

I’m still salty about it though

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Ridiculous lawsuit for crying out fucking loud. How can we be where we are and people

STILL trying to do harm to Democrats and Hillary, amazing.

[Stallion]

14. Democrats favoring a Democrat over an Independent-Shocking

[JI7]

19. Fuck those people

[Gothmog]

21. This lawsuit was so stupid that it was fun to laugh at

This was a fun soap opera to watch. The petition and the briefs from the plaintiffs were dreck and were fun to laugh at. The concept that a campaign donor qualifies as a consumer under the DC consumer protection law was truly a stupid argument

Here are some of the threads that I have fun
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210544462
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212633275
There were some JPR posters who were nominal plaintiffs in this bogus lawsuit that the idiots on JPR really defended this bogus piece of shit lawsuit
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028980417
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212635213
I really enjoyed laughing at the JPR posters who thought that this silly lawsuit had merit.

[betsuni]

22. Oh, thanks for the links!

Entertaining.

[Gothmog]

23. A former poster who also posts on JPR really believed in this stupid lawsuit

I understand that some of the idiots who post on JPR were nominal plaintiffs in this really stupid lawsuit. I was amused that anyone would take this piece of dreck seriously

[betsuni]

24. That's hilarious.

I remember a plaintive request on JPR for people to help comb through hacked DNC emails because there MUST be something bad there, THERE MUST BE! Laff riot.

[NurseJackie]

26. Such silly people and an absurd claim. The court agrees.

Ahh... good times, eh? What fun.