Are we on the brink of civil war 2.0?

[bacha29]

The case wasn't dismissed based on no standing. They chose not to hear the case at all.

In to be heard the plaintiffs first had to meet what in legal circles is referred to as "standing" . Which in turn means that their complaint has to first meet the threshold of legal merit worthy of being heard in court. This in turn means that in many of the complaints filed the complaints themselves were so frivolous and so preposterous and so devoid of standing that they were dismissed outright.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

One of the Pa's asked Guiliani for the evidence to support the plaintiffs claim of election fraud, Guiliani's reply in an attempt to avoid perjuring himself ....."This is not a fraud case".

That wasn't a fraud case. How many times does this need to be explained to you lady?

Do you ever get tired of repeating the same lies over and over?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

In to be heard the plaintiffs first had to meet what in legal circles is referred to as "standing" . Which in turn means that their complaint has to first meet the threshold of legal merit worthy of being heard in court. This in turn means that in many of the complaints filed the complaints themselves were so frivolous and so preposterous and so devoid of standing that they were dismissed outright.

Standing is determined through evidentiary processes. No discovery, no determination of lack of standing. The cases were dismissed on motions to dismiss before they ever got to discovery, in almost all cases. One case from Wisconsin, that was an actual Trump case, was dismissed because the state courts said it was a federal case, not their jurisdiction. That was an actual electors clause case. The Supreme Court wouldn't hear the Texas case for the opposite reason, saying Texas had to take it up with the Pennsylvania courts. But the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states.

Everything you've claimed about the court cases is all incorrect. Sorry. If you actually knew what really happened, you might understand why people are skeptical about the election.

 

[newfie]

Tex and others will go to their graves still convinced that Trump won regardless off the dozens of times the opportunity was there for Trump's followers to meet the same burden of proof required in any trial but they failed miserably.

And BTW there is discussions ongoing regarding the possible appearance by some of the individuals arrested and facing federal charges for their involvement in the coup attempt going before the Senate in the Trump impeachment trial and say that Trump incited them to riot . So Tuesday could be a very interesting day at the White House .

 

[bacha29]

Standing is determined through evidentiary processes. No discovery, no determination of lack of standing. The cases were dismissed on motions to dismiss before they ever got to discovery, in almost all cases. One case from Wisconsin, that was an actual Trump case, was dismissed because the state courts said it was a federal case, not their jurisdiction. That was an actual electors clause case. The Supreme Court wouldn't hear the Texas case for the opposite reason, saying Texas had to take it up with the Pennsylvania courts. But the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states.

Everything you've claimed about the court cases is all incorrect. Sorry. If you actually knew what really happened, you might understand why people are skeptical about the election.

So tell me from what university did you earn your juris degree and in what states did you take the bar exam?

 

[bbsam]

The case wasn't dismissed based on no standing. They chose not to hear the case at all.

Yes. Well lack of standing is often a reason judges and justices choose not to hear a case.

 

[1989]

So tell me from what university did you earn your juris degree and in what states did you take the bar exam?

State of confusion

 

[bacha29]

Yes. Well lack of standing is often a reason judges and justices choose not to hear a case.

The guy is claiming that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over states but states run their own elections. And SCOTUS knew what the GOP was up to. They were trying to use every possible way to overturn a presidential election and keep Trump in power. After having failed at every turn the only means left was to storm the capital in a coup attempt.
Moreover SCOTUS wasn't willing to find itself two years from now being inundated with suits between states for no other reason than the majority party in one state sues another state simply because it didn't like the results in that state. Not going to put up with red state Montana suing blue state New York over the results of it's election simply because Montana didn't like New York's outcome.

 

[bacha29]

That wasn't a fraud case. How many times does this need to be explained to you lady?

Do you ever get tired of repeating the same lies over and over?

If it wasn't a fraud case in Pa then what the suit over?

 

[Old Man Jingles]

So tell me from what university did you earn your juris degree and in what states did you take the bar exam?

Same place you got yours ... get a mirror and sit on it for a view.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The guy is claiming that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over states but states run their own elections. And SCOTUS knew what the GOP was up to. They were trying to use every possible way to overturn a presidential election and keep Trump in power. After having failed at every turn the only means left was to storm the capital in a coup attempt.
Moreover SCOTUS wasn't willing to find itself two years from now being inundated with suits between states for no other reason than the majority party in one state sues another state simply because it didn't like the results in that state. Not going to put up with red state Montana suing blue state New York over the results of it's election simply because Montana didn't like New York's outcome.

So tell me from what university did you earn your juris degree and in what states did you take the bar exam?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If it wasn't a fraud case in Pa then what the suit over?

I'm glad you're now admitting you don't know what that case was about. Good start. Now go do some research lady.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

So tell me from what university did you earn your juris degree and in what states did you take the bar exam?

Probably the same as you? I don't have to be a bar certified lawyer to be better informed than you.

 

[1989]

Probably the same as you? I don't have to be a bar certified lawyer to be better informed than you.

Which attorney alleged fraud to a judge? When judges asked if they were alleging fraud, they all said no, because they knew there were consequences for lying to a judge.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Yes. Well lack of standing is often a reason judges and justices choose not to hear a case.

Wrong. You have to establish lack of standing, and can only do that upon hearing the evidence through discovery. The motions to dismiss were based on laches doctrine, meaning it was too late for the courts to provide remedy, which is debateable. The Judges went for that because none of them wanted to get involved. Other cases were turned down, mostly lawsuits from parties other than Trump, because they had other avenues for remedy.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Which attorney alleged fraud to a judge? When judges asked if they were alleging fraud, they all said no, because they knew there were consequences for lying to a judge.

I must have missed the part where the judges asked them if they were alleging fraud. smh. Law suits are drafted and complaints are included in the pleadings.

 

[1989]

I must have missed the part where the judges asked them if they were alleging fraud. smh. Law suits are drafted and complaints are included in the pleadings.

In Pennsylvania Giuliani and Goldstein Both said they were not alleging fraud. In Arizona, there was no mention of fraud. Can you find any court proceedings where the attorneys claimed fraud?

 

[Babagounj]

And BTW there is discussions ongoing regarding the possible appearance by some of the individuals arrested and facing federal charges for their involvement in the coup attempt going before the Senate in the Trump impeachment trial and say that Trump incited them to riot . So Tuesday could be a very interesting day at the White House .

Nancy hasn't sent the Impeach papers to the Senate, yet.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

In Pennsylvania Giuliani and Goldstein Both said they were not alleging fraud. In Arizona, there was no mention of fraud. Can you find any court proceedings where the attorneys claimed fraud?

That was at a hearing being conducted by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. There were a lot of suits, I haven't read through them all. I think Lin Wood and Sidney Powell were alleging fraud. I didn't really look through their suits. Trump's team didn't go the fraud route because the difficulties involved in proving it. With having to coordinate efforts in 5 or 6 states in a very short amount of time, and no access to party resources, Trump's team had to make due with whatever support they could get from Republican parties at the state level, and the resources of the Trump campaign.

Lawyers develop their strategies to try to get the desired outcome with the approach that is most likely to achieve the outcome.

"In law it is a good policy to never plead what you need not, lest you oblige yourself to prove what you can not."

-Abraham Lincoln

For the most part Trump's team went after the electors clause issues. Outside the courts, they were trying to force signature audits, especially in Georgia, when they shouldn't have had to force them, and, as far as I know, some counties in Georgia were never audited. Signature challenges generally disqualify enough ballots that it could have actually flipped Georgia back to Trump. The problem in Georgia is that the Democratic party sued the Secretary of State to get the signature challenge rules changed, circumventing the State Legislature, which is where the Electors Clause comes in.

Bear in mind, signature challenges were how Obama disqualified his primary opponents for Illinois State Senate.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

In to be heard the plaintiffs first had to meet what in legal circles is referred to as "standing" . Which in turn means that their complaint has to first meet the threshold of legal merit worthy of being heard in court. This in turn means that in many of the complaints filed the complaints themselves were so frivolous and so preposterous and so devoid of standing that they were dismissed outright.

Bip bop