https://t.co/PvaxB7Nkhi
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.
Oh myyyyyyyyyy
— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) January 25, 2021
Good morning, followers of frivolous election-related litigation - new filings in Seditionists v 117th Congress et al. (aka in re Gondor)
I've really got to get stuff done, but there's time for a really quick overview.
https://t.co/PvaxB7Nkhi
But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.
https://t.co/l7EDatDudy
Y'all need to reconnect (or possibly connect) with reality.
Now I do agree that "radical left-wing journalist" is most likely non-actionable opinion, but that wasn't the only thing the letter (which is irrelevant to this case) brought up.
Even if we assume that HAVA wasn't complied with (and I'm pretty sure that's incorrect), how do you get to the conclusion that this renders the entire election in all 50 states null and void?
We might not be spectacular at the whole common sense thing, but we're not totally bereft of it either.
Not a thing you want to be telling a court on your fourth attempt at submitting a proposed TRO.
Also pro tip:
You don't want to be on your fourth attempt at submitting a proposed TRO.
2: "Mere fantasy" is generous; "crackhead delusion" more accurate.
3: They are right in "a" sense where "a" = "every."
In all seriousness: I'll keep talking about this case because it's an absurd misuse of the legal system by licensed attorneys representing clients. But it's getting to the point where it's clear this guy needs help. And to be suspended while he's getting it.
Also, you need to serve defendants to get to trial, so pitter patter.
Hmmm. Wasn't really that hard to say.
Go figure.
You know what? Don't answer that. It's fine.
He's literally presenting the 1-page-cv-expert's legal analysis. As if it's expert testimony.
And it's a stupid, stupid, stupid argument.
"Judge, here's a menu, pick or do the cooking yourself, I don't care anymore" is ---
yikes.
I'm just gonna skip to the new, non-LOTR parts of this one.
https://t.co/JkMjzOXkH4
No, the Courts cannot enjoin Congress from voting; separation of powers. That's dumb. Just totally dumb.
Also, would this include (eg) a declaration of war if we're attacked? Attacked from without, I mean, not by insider threats like Plaintiffs' counsel in this case.
More from Mike Dunford
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
I went over the dismissal on my stream, but a few thoughts on where things are at:
1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.
3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.
5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.
7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.
So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.
And the appeal has been noticed. pic.twitter.com/o4g4ES1wrU
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 2, 2021
3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.
5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.
7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.
So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.
No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.
If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.
Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of
Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.
Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.
If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.
Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of
It looks like we have a new leader in the \u201ccraziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election\u201d category:
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 8, 2020
The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS.
(Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.) pic.twitter.com/2L4GmdCB6I
Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.
Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
More from Politics
Funny, before the election I recall lefties muttering the caravan must have been a Trump setup because it made the open borders crowd look so bad. Why would the pro-migrant crowd engineer a crisis that played into Trump's hands? THIS is why. THESE are the "optics" they wanted.
This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."
There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?
It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."
The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
Funny there are those who think these migrant caravans were a FANTASTIC idea that's going to take the immigration issue away from you.
— Brian Cates (@drawandstrike) November 26, 2018
Like several weeks watching a rampaging horde storm the fences & throw rocks at our border patrol agents & getting gassed = great optics!
This media manipulation effort was inspired by the success of the "kids in cages" freakout, a 100% Stalinist propaganda drive that required people to forget about Obama putting migrant children in cells. It worked, so now they want pics of Trump "gassing children on the border."
There's a heavy air of Pallywood around the whole thing as well. If the Palestinians can stage huge theatrical performances of victimhood with the willing cooperation of Western media, why shouldn't the migrant caravan organizers expect the same?
It's business as usual for Anarchy, Inc. - the worldwide shredding of national sovereignty to increase the power of transnational organizations and left-wing ideology. Many in the media are true believers. Others just cannot resist the narrative of "change" and "social justice."
The product sold by Anarchy, Inc. is victimhood. It always boils down to the same formula: once the existing order can be painted as oppressors and children as their victims, chaos wins and order loses. Look at the lefties shrieking in unison about "Trump gassing children" today.
