SpacemanSpiff wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:25 pmAnd, not surprisingly, he has appealed that ruling.Bob78164 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:01 pmSenator Toomey, citing the decision by "a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist," has congratulated President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris on their victory and urged Donny to cooperate with the transition.silverscreenselect wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:30 pmThe latest Republican Hail Mary lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which sought to invalidate all the mail-in ballots, has been dismissed with prejudice by the judge. The judge specifically noted the lack of any factual evidence in support of the allegations. The suit claimed that the latest Pennsylvania law regarding mail-in voting procedures was unconstitutional and that all such ballots should be disqualified. The judge noted that plaintiff's attorneys had made numerous attempts to amend the pleadings, including, in the judge's words, "a rude and ill-conceived voicemail which distracted the Court's attention from the significant issues at hand."
The court said that both the Trump campaign and a couple of individual voter plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit. The two plaintiffs had their mail-in ballots invalidated because they failed to follow the correct procedure, but the counties where they lived (Republican counties) were not parties to the lawsuit. The court also noted that disqualifying all the votes would not cure any injury the plaintiffs might have suffered. As far as the Trump campaign was concerned, the court found that it had never alleged any actual injury it had suffered.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylva ... 01121.html
Game, set, and match in Pennsylvania.
Here's the Court's opinion. It's blistering.
--BobJudge Brann wrote: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.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/state ... 2011220197
CNN had this to say
"In the hall of mirrors in which Trump's legal team operates, a stinging rebuke from a judge is simply interpreted as validation for a legal strategy steeped in conspiracy theories, lies and paranoia. Giuliani greeted the humiliating put-down by Brann not as confirmation of a laughable case but as a decision that "turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court.""
Rudy is not lying or exaggerating. The strategy has always been to get their case before the Supreme Court where they believe they will have a friendly audience. The question now is whether the SCOTUS will have the cojones to look at the case and decide - as they should - that there is no legal basis to hear the case and let the PA State Supreme Court stand. As a side note - I am quite sure that someone had to explain to the incumbent that they could not just simply drive over to the Supreme Court on November 4 and have them hear it and rule on it right then.