• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
pgwenthold said:
Is there any reason to think the conservative members of the SCOTUS are any more extreme than the panel of the 3rd circuit, that hammered the campaign with things like, "Lawsuits usually have serious allegations and evidence. This case has neither."

That was written by a Trump-appointed judge. The other two judges were Bush appointees.

This has already been heard by a conservative court. It got destroyed.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single reason why SCOTUS would want to hear this case. There is no upside in them hearing it.
 
Paul2 said:
Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well.



Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case?
Click to expand...
Which one is this? Hard to keep track.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm pretty sure you are right, but a thought occurred to me about a reason certiorari might be granted.

Sometimes, the Supreme Court takes a case, and then issues a 9-0 opinion. I wouldn't swear that I've ever seen that where they take a case and issue a 9-0 or other lopsided, let's say 7-2, opinion that upholds a lower court ruling, but I'm guessing it has happened.

Their purpose in doing so, I am told, is that sometimes there is no clear court precedent, and they want to establish one. There has been a lot of nonsense spouted in this post-election time about how the legislature can step in and disregard the will of the people. It is conceivable that they might take the case just for the purpose of making sure they can establish a precedent that this case, and any other like it, is nuts. If they want to squash this one like a bug, and make sure that any other fantasy of ignoring elections does not darken their doorstep in the future, they might take the case.

I doubt it, but I don't know enough to say the scenario is absolutely impossible.
Click to expand...

The thing is they don't need to create new precedence. This isn't Nixon v US where the court ruled 8 to 0 with Rhenquist absteining.

Better to reject it outright than to keep this farce going a minute longer. Don't let the court be the focus of attention.
 
acbytesla said:
I can't think of a single reason why SCOTUS would want to hear this case. There is no upside in them hearing it.
Click to expand...



What is the down side? They're all appointed for life, so even if Trump decides to trash them, there's essentially nothing he can actually do to them.

Plus, there is an upside, at least for the three judges Trump appointed: Being part of a 9-0 smackdown of Trump himself is just about the only thing that would convince a lot of people that they won't just be toadies to Trump.
 
acbytesla said:
The thing is they don't need to create new precedence. This isn't Nixon v US where the court ruled 8 to 0 with Rhenquist absteining.

Better to reject it outright than to keep this farce going a minute longer. Don't let the court be the focus of attention.
Click to expand...

I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.
 
Horatius said:
What is the down side? They're all appointed for life, so even if Trump decides to trash them, there's essentially nothing he can actually do to them.

Plus, there is an upside, at least for the three judges Trump appointed: Being part of a 9-0 smackdown of Trump himself is just about the only thing that would convince a lot of people that they won't just be toadies to Trump.
Click to expand...

While a 9-0 slap down might be fun, there is no question of law that needs to be settled. Their ruling would be redundant to the slapdown Trump got with the Third Circuit. Simply not issuing Certiorari would also send the message that the court is not a political instrument.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.
Click to expand...
I think you might be mistaken in your assumption that such a decision would be correct in a broad sense. Even a liberal judge might look at this and want to stay far away from making a broad decision since states are permitted a great deal of freedom in how they conduct their elections and assign their electors in the presidential election. In this situation, it seems likely that a smart Supreme Court Justice would look at this, decide that the lower court was correct, and leave it at that.

Besides, at the end of the day, the Supremes didn't look good at all when they let themselves be dragged into the 2000 election and then decided it. I doubt any of the current justices are particularly interested in getting pulled into this mess where the outcome isn't even truly in question.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.
Click to expand...

I understand that. But this isn't the case to do that with. But I hope we never see that case because that would mean some state tried to do it.
 
Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the insights about the 3rd Circuit case going to SCOTUS.
 
acbytesla said:
The Trump campaign hasn't filed an appeal to SCOTUS that I'm aware of. But here's a link to the 27 page Third Circuit ruling.



https://www.scribd.com/document/486077037/CA3-20-3371



Here is one of many articles that summarises it



https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/27/trump-loses-appeal-of-pennsylvania-election-case.html
Click to expand...
Ah right. I read that yesterday. From how people people were posting I thought they had started their appeal.

Don't forget any appeal to the SCOTUS would have to be about the original decision to not allow the second amendment.

Can't see why the SCOTUS would get involved in such a decision, especially given the appeal court not only affirmed the original decision to not allow the second amendment based on due delay but considered other possible legal arguments.

Remember appeals are not for another bite of the cherry.
 
"A court ruled against the Second Amendment! It's time, folks, get your rifles!"
 
Darat said:
Ah right. I read that yesterday. From how people people were posting I thought they had started their appeal.

Don't forget any appeal to the SCOTUS would have to be about the original decision to not allow the second amendment.

Can't see why the SCOTUS would get involved in such a decision, especially given the appeal court not only affirmed the original decision to not allow the second amendment based on due delay but considered other possible legal arguments.

Remember appeals are not for another bite of the cherry.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I see it. SCOTUS doesn't rule on questions of fact, only on questions of law. There is no legal justification to allow Trump to amend his case twice.
 
acbytesla said:
That's pretty much how I see it. SCOTUS doesn't rule on questions of fact, only on questions of law. There is no legal justification to allow Trump to amend his case twice.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, IANAL, LOL... there is no constitutional reason a judge has to allow someone to amend their case even once.
 
Babbylonian said:
AFAIK, IANAL, LOL... there is no constitutional reason a judge has to allow someone to amend their case even once.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is also a case where the plaintiffs emphasized the need for speed.

I guess Judge Brann was just a little too fast for them.
 
https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1332414252003581954?s=19

There's an eventbrite link to the "public hearing" being held at a Hyatt Regency by "select members" of the AZ legislature.

Other members have noted the way they've set this up (only one party's members, held outside of the capitol without any notice) make their use of the term "public hearing" very suspect. It's a stunt for cameras.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the insights about the 3rd Circuit case going to SCOTUS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom