The Third Cir. has rejected Trump's appeal decisively in PA

T-800 · Nov 27, 2020

JigglesBunny said:
Imagine thinking there was a plan. Imagine thinking that this is all going according to that plan. Imagine being that fucking stupid.

I made the mistake of checking out GAF the other day to see what people there were thinking. I was bored alright. While there were people making fun of the Trump legal team there were others who legit think this is all part of the strategy. I don't get it.

ragolliangatan · Nov 27, 2020

Captain Tuttle said:
My man Fetterman to the rescue

I saw a legal expert make a good point that in order to do what Mastrioni wants they would have to somehow claim the election was illegal. As the same ballots are used for the main and down ballot votes they would also be claiming their own election is illegal hence they wouldn't be able to take their place in the legislature.

EMBee99 · Nov 27, 2020

Even if, and it's a big IF, the Supreme Court does hear this and defy every ounce of legal reasoning and logic to overturn the PA results, it still doesn't even matter, correct? They'd still need to do this to Michigan, Arizona, etc.

Orion117 · Nov 27, 2020

EMBee99 said:
Even if, and it's a big IF, the Supreme Court does hear this and defy every ounce of legal reasoning and logic to overturn the PA results, it still doesn't even matter, correct? They'd still need to do this to Michigan, Arizona, etc.

At that point they have lost any credibility anyway. Nothing stops them from doing this for all those states as well.

TAJ · Nov 27, 2020

The Llama said:
lol Bibas was appointed by Trump and was one of my professors in law school. I didn't do well in his class tho (I got a B-... woops).

Only one of you has to carry the shame of being a Trump appointee.

foxuzamaki · Nov 27, 2020

How can they go to SCOTUS if they cant even get pass the third circuit?

CrichtonKicks · Nov 27, 2020

EMBee99 said:
Even if, and it's a big IF, the Supreme Court does hear this and defy every ounce of legal reasoning and logic to overturn the PA results, it still doesn't even matter, correct? They'd still need to do this to Michigan, Arizona, etc.

This appeal cannot overturn PA results even if they got a 9-0 verdict in the SC. That's not how appeals work- they can't try the case for the first time in appeal. Best case for the Republicans would be the SC decides to hear the case and then rules in their favor that the judge should not have dismissed the case. That just kicks it back down to the lower courts and the case could go to trial.

StrangeRoboMemory · Nov 27, 2020

What's this nonsense?

TeenageFBI · Nov 27, 2020

StrangeRoboMemory said:
What's this nonsense?

Well, it says marklevinshow so I'm not clicking it. I used to listen in to that show like 15 years ago out of morbid curiousity. Dude was out of his mind even then.

StrangeRoboMemory · Nov 27, 2020

TeenageFBI said:
Well, it says marklevinshow so I'm not clicking it. I used to listen in to that show like 15 years ago out of morbid curiousity. Dude was out of his mind even then.

Huh...no idea who the guy is. Saw some MAGA morons claiming that this was a big deal (probably just more bullshit).

TeenageFBI · Nov 27, 2020

StrangeRoboMemory said:
Huh...no idea who the guy is.

American right wing radio guy. He's awful. Just a vile asshole.

CrichtonKicks · Nov 27, 2020

StrangeRoboMemory said:
What's this nonsense?

It's just the preliminary injunction against further certifications that was granted earlier this week. Because the state is appealing the injunction the judge who issued the injunction wrote the memorandum linked in the tweet to justify their reasoning.

Coyote Starrk · Nov 27, 2020

CrichtonKicks said:
It's just the preliminary injunction against further certifications that was granted earlier this week. Because the state is appealing the injunction the judge who issued the injunction wrote the memorandum linked in the tweet to justify their reasoning.

So it's nothing?

Wag · Nov 27, 2020

Take it to the Supreme Court so then Trump can try to claim they're corrupt when he loses. lol

Primus · Nov 27, 2020

Coyote Starrk said:
So it's nothing?

Not only is it nothing, but because the downballot races aren't allowed certification the PA legislature won't actually exist after Monday as that's the day their terms expire. Without certified races the new legislature can't be sworn in, and without a new legislature sworn in they can't attempt to put together their own suite of electors. It's a wonderful self-own.

Coyote Starrk · Nov 27, 2020

Primus said:
Not only is it nothing, but because the downballot races aren't allowed certification the PA legislature won't actually exist after Monday as that's the day their terms expire. Without certified races the new legislature can't be sworn in. It's a wonderful self-own.

Amazing.

Truly the best people lol

ragolliangatan · Nov 27, 2020

Read through the memorandum, and the most worrying part from it is that McCullogh claims that the injunction was put in place because there is a valid claim that mail-in voting passed last year is unconstitutional.

That said she does mention further down- she is not sure what the valid relief would be, as throwing out all mail in ballots who felt they were voting legally would disenfranchise voters of the Commonwealth.

Ultimately I think this goes nowhere- Act 77 passed with Republican support. Realistically something like this should have been brought forward and ruled on 6 months ago, not after the fact of an election.

mugurumakensei · Nov 28, 2020

ragolliangatan said:
Read through the memorandum, and the most worrying part from it is that McCullogh claims that the injunction was put in place because there is a valid claim that mail-in voting passed last year is unconstitutional.

Strictly speaking only the PA Supreme Court has jurisdiction. That said, the judge who granted the injunction is an elected Republican judge who is a Trumper.

ragolliangatan · Nov 28, 2020

mugurumakensei said:
Strictly speaking only the PA Supreme Court has jurisdiction. That said, the judge who granted the injunction is an elected Republican judge who is a Trumper.

What happens if this were to reach the PA Supreme Court and they rule it constitutional - any role for SCOTUS in this. Or is it a moot point because it relates to state law only.

mugurumakensei · Nov 28, 2020

ragolliangatan said:
What happens if this were to reach the PA Supreme Court and they rule it constitutional - any role for SCOTUS in this. Or is it a moot point because it relates to state law only.

PA SC will rule it constitutional, and so far SCOTUS will likely not take up the case.

Stencil · Nov 28, 2020

Commedieu said:
I just mean they're calling them 'activists' which now just means anyone that disagrees with the white houses messaging.

You love to see it.

Lol wait, is this terminology that his base is using now? Calling people who oppose fascism 'activists'? As if that's a bad thing??
You really do love to see it. If I have that right, that's amazing.

tobascodagama · Nov 28, 2020

"Activist judges" is an ooooooooooooold code. I heard it a lot in the Clinton era, but I'm sure it goes back further than that.

Orion117 said:
At that point they have lost any credibility anyway. Nothing stops them from doing this for all those states as well.

Time stops them. It took almost a whole month to get this case this far, and the Electoral College meets on Dec 14. Highly unlikely cases in enough states to flip the election make it to SCOTUS at all, let alone do so and then get ruled on quickly enough to affect the electors who get sent to the EC.

ragolliangatan · Nov 28, 2020

This gives a really clear explanation of the Kelly case:

Bid To Toss Mail-In Votes Is Two Elections Too Late, Pa. Says - Law360

A Republican member of Congress' last-minute bid to throw out about 3 million mail-in votes in Pennsylvania came more than a year and two elections too late, the state and its Republican-majority Legislature told a Keystone State court on Monday.

www.law360.com

The law should have been challenged at the latest 180 days after it was signed into law, not after an election. The claims from the petitioners that they didn't know the extent of the law until after the election results are laughable. Ironically when Act 77 was signed into law one of the petitioners praised it.

crimnos · Nov 28, 2020

Primus said:
Not only is it nothing, but because the downballot races aren't allowed certification the PA legislature won't actually exist after Monday as that's the day their terms expire. Without certified races the new legislature can't be sworn in, and without a new legislature sworn in they can't attempt to put together their own suite of electors. It's a wonderful self-own.

Also, Barnes was Alex Jones's lawyer in the Sandy Hook case, occasionally hosted a show on InfoWars and is now revving up his grift machine. Trust nothing from the man.

mclem · Nov 28, 2020

orochi91 said:
At this point, Trump is just getting his lawyer buddies paid, lol

Get paid with campaign funds now, get some pro bono personal work later?

ragolliangatan · Nov 28, 2020

Primus said:
Not only is it nothing, but because the downballot races aren't allowed certification the PA legislature won't actually exist after Monday as that's the day their terms expire. Without certified races the new legislature can't be sworn in, and without a new legislature sworn in they can't attempt to put together their own suite of electors. It's a wonderful self-own.

yeah, it's a huge self-own.

Ironically, once this lawsuit is likely dismissed or sent to the PA supreme court and the certification injunction is lifted the Democratic Governor can just wait and certify the state and senate results until after the Dec 8th safe harbor date.

BWoog · Nov 28, 2020

Loudninja · Nov 28, 2020

thefit · Nov 28, 2020

BWoog said:

The fucking judge that even slightly considered making the 2019 law illegal should be tarred and feathered.

Loudninja · Nov 28, 2020

Emobacca · Nov 28, 2020

Loudninja said:

dejay · Nov 28, 2020

thefit said:
The fucking judge that even slightly considered making the 2019 law illegal should be tarred and feathered.

Has he/she considering it or just delaying certification until it could be resolved?

piratepwnsninja · Nov 28, 2020

Loudninja said:

All part of the plan!

Plinko · Nov 28, 2020

thefit said:
The fucking judge that even slightly considered making the 2019 law illegal should be tarred and feathered.

I believe that while they had questions about the law itself, the judge eventually said there was zero reason to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters.

TheRagnCajun · Nov 28, 2020

What about the Kraken? Had that been dismissed?

Rats · Nov 28, 2020

Loudninja said:

Halftime. Trust the plan. Kraken. So much winning.

Jason's Ultimatum · Nov 28, 2020

So Trump and his legal team won one case? Which state and why?

Primus · Nov 29, 2020

Jason's Ultimatum said:
So Trump and his legal team won one case? Which state and why?

It was a minor PA case about the distance observers had to stay from election workers. PA wanted 12', Trump campaign wanted 6', 6' won.

gozu · Nov 29, 2020

thefit said:
The fucking judge that even slightly considered making the 2019 law illegal should be tarred and feathered.

Tar kills birds and fish, FYI. It's bad for the planet and is not something you want to be using. Try something sticky and harmless like corn syrup instead. The feathers part of it is virenmentally* fine, but someone might be allergic. So make sure to check that beforehand.

That judge should be fired from their job though. I agree with that much.

*The word "environmentally" is too long @ 6 syllables and 15 letters. I've decided to shorten it to improve the english language as is customary. Please spread the word.

Vincent Grayson · Nov 29, 2020

Cokomon said:
In their minds, they do think they have evidence. It's all conspiracy theories, but they think it constitutes airtight evidence.

Do you think Ellis and Giuliani actually believe the things they're putting out there? That's the one thing I'm unsure of. Whether they're just soullessly seeking power for themselves/Trump, and know it's all a grift, or whether they genuinely believe that they just "can't" have lost the election this bad, and it must be fraud/cheating/etc.

CrichtonKicks · Nov 29, 2020

Vincent Grayson said:
Do you think Ellis and Giuliani actually believe the things they're putting out there? That's the one thing I'm unsure of. Whether they're just soullessly seeking power for themselves/Trump, and know it's all a grift, or whether they genuinely believe that they just "can't" have lost the election this bad, and it must be fraud/cheating/etc.

Well it's worth pointing out the Giuliani pointedly only refers to fraud when he's outside the courtroom since there are major repercussions for lying in court so....

Carnby · Nov 29, 2020

Emobacca said:

Haha. That's amazing. I'd love to have this on a pocket sized sound machine.

The Third Cir. has rejected Trump's appeal decisively in PA

▲ Legend ▲

Prophet of Regret - A King's Landing

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

▲ Legend ▲

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!

▲ Legend ▲

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!

▲ Legend ▲

▲ Legend ▲

Lead Game Designer