US Election Week 2020

[Sheilbh]

Amazing - post more. Welcome ( ?)

[Sheilbh]

So Trump is now calling for "courts and/or legislatures" to overturn the election:

[Grey Fox]

It was always the plan.

[Admiral Yi]

Sweet, sweet Trumptard tears.

[Zoupa]

Cry more, Bunkbitch.

[The Brain]

Have you been lurking for 11 years and only now decided to post something?

Well...Umm...Yeah that's about it.

I used to play eu2 and registered so I could play in a few games here before the site crashed. Since then I've been lurking because the people on this site generally share my interests. You guys post a lot of interesting news I might not catch otherwise. Also, it is one of the few places on the internet where people on both sides of American politics talk to each other with something resembling civility. Plus who doesn't enjoy a good pun? I don't post much (at all) because someone usually has my opinion covered and I already spend enough time just reading this site 

Awesome! Hi!

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump's big PA case was dismissed a few hours ago.  While he was golfing the judge and his clerks worked into Saturday.  The gist of the opinion follows the intro:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") seek to  discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from  all corners – from  Greene County to Pike  County, and everywhere in between. 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.

[Maladict]

Epic uncloaking.

Excellent ussdefiant reference.

[Malicious Intent]

Trump's big PA case was dismissed a few hours ago.  While he was golfing the judge and his clerks worked into Saturday.  The gist of the opinion follows the intro:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") seek to  discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from  all corners – from  Greene County to Pike  County, and everywhere in between. 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.

And Giuliani of course basically declared the court's dismissal a win for the Trump campaign.

"Today's decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court."

[The Larch]

Trump's big PA case was dismissed a few hours ago.  While he was golfing the judge and his clerks worked into Saturday.  The gist of the opinion follows the intro:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") seek to  discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from  all corners – from  Greene County to Pike  County, and everywhere in between. 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.

And Giuliani of course basically declared the court's dismissal a win for the Trump campaign.

"Today's decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court."

Well, if their end game is taking it all to the Supreme Court and all these state cases are only the necessary steps to do so then yes, but they're getting slapped everywhere. How likely is that the Supreme Court (barring extreme partisanship from the judges) will be more receptive to their case than lower courts?

[The Brain]

Does the Supreme Court deal with every single case that someone wants them to deal with? Can you swamp the Supreme Court with obviously bogus cases?

[Eddie Teach]

Trump's big PA case was dismissed a few hours ago.  While he was golfing the judge and his clerks worked into Saturday.  The gist of the opinion follows the intro:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") seek to  discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from  all corners – from  Greene County to Pike  County, and everywhere in between. 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.

And Giuliani of course basically declared the court's dismissal a win for the Trump campaign.

"Today's decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the US Supreme Court."

Well, if their end game is taking it all to the Supreme Court and all these state cases are only the necessary steps to do so then yes, but they're getting slapped everywhere. How likely is that the Supreme Court (barring extreme partisanship from the judges) will be more receptive to their case than lower courts?

Extreme partisanship from the judges is the end game. I think it's a miscalculation on Trump's part, but that's the hope and fear.

[mongers]

Dane just won the internet.  We can all go home, now. 

This.

Pretty bloody awesome on his part. 

[celedhring]

Extreme partisanship from the judges is the end game. I think it's a miscalculation on Trump's part, but that's the hope and fear.

If the Supreme Court doesn't take it up, maybe Rudy can instead take it to the Supreme Courtyard Tools & Gardening.

[grumbler]

If the Supreme Court doesn't take it up, maybe Rudy can instead take it to the Supreme Courtyard Tools & Gardening.

  Man, I wish I'd said that.