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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Judge really kicked the crap out of Guliani..... [View all]Gothmog
(144,905 posts)17. Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court
Prof. Hasen is having fun https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118942
In a total loss the the Trump campaign, a federal district court in Pennsylvania has dismissed the most serious case brought by the campaign and denied the campaign a motion to file an amended complaint.
The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start:
In a 37-page opinion, the court concluded:
The court had many problems with the complaint, but this goes to the heart of the merits: Granting Plaintiffs requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs requested relief.
The judge just excoriates this suit, which those of us in the field have called ridiculous from the start:
In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants motions and dismiss Plaintiffs action with prejudice.
In a 37-page opinion, the court concluded:
Defendants motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted with prejudice. Leave to amend is denied. Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility. Given that: (1) Plaintiffs have already amended once as of right; (2) Plaintiffs seek to amend simply in order to effectively reinstate their initial complaint and claims; and (3) the deadline for counties in Pennsylvania to certify their election results to Secretary Boockvar is November 23, 2020, amendment would unduly delay resolution of the issues. This is especially true because the Court would need to implement a new briefing schedule, conduct a second oral argument, and then decide the issues.
The court had many problems with the complaint, but this goes to the heart of the merits: Granting Plaintiffs requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs requested relief.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It Means it Can Not Be Refiled (although Defendant could possibly appeal to higher Court)
Stallion
Nov 2020
#9
It means "This shish is unfixable, so don't even think of bringing it back in here"
StarfishSaver
Nov 2020
#28
I wish the judges would/could go further than a wrist slap at this point. It's obvious this is a
Karadeniz
Nov 2020
#2
Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court
Gothmog
Nov 2020
#17
12(b)(6) motions are very common, but they are usually granted without prejudice.
SunSeeker
Nov 2020
#33