BOOM! 3rd Circuit Tosses Trump PA Lawsuit - "Voters, not Lawyers, Choose the President"

AceRothstein

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
5,845
Reaction score
1,276
Points
245
:laughing0301:

Yet states cannot change voting laws without legislation.

Any state implementing mail-in votes without legislation did so in violation of most recent pecedent.

The fact that you do not understand the real issue (proper legislation) makes me give not one single rat's ass whether you eventually do.
Why wasn't that in the lawsuit?
Which lawsuit? There are many.
Trump lost bro. Get over it.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,565
Reaction score
10,274
Points
950
:laughing0301:

Yet states cannot change voting laws without legislation.

Any state implementing mail-in votes without legislation did so in violation of most recent pecedent.

The fact that you do not understand the real issue (proper legislation) makes me give not one single rat's ass whether you eventually do.
Why wasn't that in the lawsuit?
Which lawsuit? There are many.
Trump lost bro. Get over it.
not yet he hasnt,,,
 

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,279
Reaction score
6,347
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
130,157
Reaction score
14,572
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
I know how the process works.

What is your point?

This is just an attempt to run out the clock?

If all the allegations prove to be true, will you admit that Trump was re-elected or will you continue on your current ass-licking course?
Trump lost by 6.2 Million votes.

The people said "NO" again.

Trying to use legal trickery isn't going to fly, buddy.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
5,084
Reaction score
1,509
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,
I agree in principle and in theory. But that's not the way in works in practice. It's a ten year prison sentence, minimum, and no appeal is possible. They throw in enough additional charges to keep you for life without parole, and the public defender deems it in the best interests of all concerned to plead you guilty as charged on all counts.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,565
Reaction score
10,274
Points
950

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,279
Reaction score
6,347
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth
You need something to appeal.
A ten year prison sentence for possessing an otherwise lawful firearm.
under the 2nd A all firearms are legal,,,
what's the next kraken episode? how is the 2nd amendment of your constitution relevant here?
its always relevant when dealing with democrats,,,
ah, another member of trump's legal team.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,880
Reaction score
3,531
Points
930
These initial suits were expected to be tossed out so they can go to a higher court...Trumps team expected this and is happy to see it so they can move the case on to the SCOTUS which was the plan all along....they knew the lower court lib judges wouldn't care if the election was stolen....
These lawsuits weren't "lost" as in failed to be proved by a preponderance of evidence. They were thrown out, some with prejudice, are without merit.

The difference is in how much evidence is collected by the lower court for inclusion in the appellate record. Since these cases ended so quickly, the record is virtually empty of facts. The supreme court is not a court of original jurisdiction, and can't receive evidence not already in the judicial record.
The only thing they can do, like with many other cases, is to reverse the judgement of the lower court, and send it back to be reheard.
 
OP
Toro

Toro

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
85,448
Reaction score
23,325
Points
2,180
Location
Surfing the Oceans of Liquidity
These lawsuits weren't "lost" as in failed to be proved by a preponderance of evidence. They were thrown out, some with prejudice, are without merit.

The difference is in how much evidence is collected by the lower court for inclusion in the appellate record. Since these cases ended so quickly, the record is virtually empty of facts. The supreme court is not a court of original jurisdiction, and can't receive evidence not already in the judicial record.
The only thing they can do, like with many other cases, is to reverse the judgement of the lower court, and send it back to be reheard.
Bingo!

Thank you.

That's what I mean by "You need something to appeal."
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,159
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Last stop on the way to the SCOTUS.

We'll see.
There's some problems you should know about.

The appeal that was just struck down wasn't even about the facts of the case. It was actually appealing a denial of a motion for Giuliani to amend his complaint.

That means, at best, the most that Giuliani and Trump can hope for is that SCOTUS referees that denial and allows Giuliani to amend his complaint which puts it all the way back down at the trial judge to actually hear the case. Any decision that actually matters would have to go through the trial judge, then appeals, then SCOTUS.
And yet again – the case won’t be heard by the Supreme Court because the district court and appellate court will be in agreement; there won’t be anything for the High Court to ‘review.’
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
92,131
Reaction score
9,909
Points
2,030
Last stop on the way to the SCOTUS.

We'll see.
There's some problems you should know about.

The appeal that was just struck down wasn't even about the facts of the case. It was actually appealing a denial of a motion for Giuliani to amend his complaint.

That means, at best, the most that Giuliani and Trump can hope for is that SCOTUS referees that denial and allows Giuliani to amend his complaint which puts it all the way back down at the trial judge to actually hear the case. Any decision that actually matters would have to go through the trial judge, then appeals, then SCOTUS.
And yet again – the case won’t be heard by the Supreme Court because the district court and appellate court will be in agreement; there won’t be anything for the High Court to ‘review.’
Sure, the evidence
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
24,729
Reaction score
5,103
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
I do wonder about the intelligence of the trumpers parroting these bogus "steal" theories. When will it dawn on these types that its all a load of bollox ?
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
6,880
Reaction score
3,531
Points
930
the record is virtually empty of facts
So it wasn't the cases themselves, but the evidence that was thrown out by Deomocrat judges.
Giuliani talked about having hundreds of affidavits, but only entered a limited number of them into the record. And the one's they did enter, were more of an allegation of fraud, than proof of it.

As the judges often said, If you're going to ask for injunctive relief of that magnitude, you have to bring you "A" game. And they presented a JV case.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,159
Reaction score
15,981
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top