The Swamp

psunate77 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:15 pm I found something I agree with Trump Supporters

I gotta think those are trolls.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:12 am

psunate77 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:15 pm I found something I agree with Trump Supporters

I gotta think those are trolls.

Maybe, but a lot of Trump supporters are upset over Repub SOS not finding fraud and Kemp signing the Results.

Is "Denied As Moot" a bad legal thing?

It's the Granted with Prejudice that's the bigger deal there.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:43 pm It's the Granted with Prejudice that's the bigger deal there.

I'm beginning to think that Trump's "Elite Strike Force" of lawyers might not be good at their jobs.

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:43 pm It's the Granted with Prejudice that's the bigger deal there.

Do explain esquire. I mean this for realz.

A_B wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:57 pm

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:43 pm It's the Granted with Prejudice that's the bigger deal there.

Do explain esquire. I mean this for realz.

Means it is decided and cannot be re-filed.

DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:46 pm

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:43 pm It's the Granted with Prejudice that's the bigger deal there.

I'm beginning to think that Trump's "Elite Strike Force" of lawyers might not be good at their jobs.

There are no lawyers anywhere who could have done anything with (checks notes)...NO FACTS on their side. Ethical lawyers would not have filed these claims.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which in layman's terms means, even assuming all facts in favor of the plaintiff, there is no way what they asked for is possible under the law. The court agreed. That in and of itself is big.

That the court went so far as to grant it with prejudice means the plaintiffs are barred from bringing it again. (Sometimes things are dismissed without prejudice, which means the plaintiff can amend their pleading and try again). For example, in my line of work, if something is dismissed regarding timesharing or custody of kids, it is very rarely with prejudice because the best interests of the child is the most important thing.

The denied as moot part is basically, defendants have nothing else to do because they won, and plaintiffs can fuck right off because you don't have the ability to come back because I (the judge) denied it with prejudice.

TL:DR The denied as moot is the tail, the dismissed with prejudice is the dog.

Why hasn't Rudy been disbarred?

It means the case is dead, but it also means you can proceed with your appeal now.

This won’t get reversed.

I guess the other thing to note is that this was the claim that the lawyers (including the ones who withdrew) thought was their best shot. There’s no killer claim behind Door #2. And dismissal “with prejudice” does matter in that respect too—it means no more amending the complaint to add new theories (like the ones they withdrew to streamline the case to their best shot). It’s a good order, with the professionalism you would expect from a federal judge and his staff.

JFC, I had a whole thing written about the newly issued opinion and somehow closed Chrome before I posted it.

Anyway, I read the opinion. It's actually based on a plausible theory, but the remedy is nuts.

The theory is that on the day before Election Day, the Secretary of State sent out an email to certain counties, but not all of them, recommending that they institute a notice-and-cure process for mail-in ballots rejected for technical reasons. But not all counties instituted such a process. The individual plaintiffs were voters in counties that had not instituted such a process, and their mail-in votes were rejected.

The problem with their claim is that they didn't ask for their own ballots to be cured or counted, but rather for all 6 million mail-in ballots statewide to be thrown out. That is not going to fly.

If in fact it's true that the Secretary of State sent an email to some counties but not others (which seems doubtful), I could see there being some kind of equal protection claim. But I can't see how it would not justify throwing out millions of valid ballots.

Rex wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:25 pmAnd dismissal “with prejudice” does matter in that respect too—it means no more amending the complaint to add new theories (like the ones they withdrew to streamline the case to their best shot).

Unfortunately it doesn't stop other nutjobs from bringing other nutjob lawsuits. But at this point, I think any lawsuit would have to be barred by laches, not only because people almost certainly had notice of objectionable procedures and could have brought claims before the election, but at this point the certification date is coming right up and even if there were some valid post-Election Day claim, it should have been brought two weeks ago so the courts could have addressed it before right now.

Is syb too good for us all of a sudden?

If the email had only been sent to some counties, I think we would have heard about that by now. You don’t tiptoe into federal court in a case like this, not when you are seeking emergency relief.

And even if they had the goods, the theory seems kind of novel. It’s unethical maybe, but unconstitutional? I’m sure there’s lots of ways in which state election officials give personalized support to counties to help them process votes, which as the court notes is different from suppressing votes.

rass wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:47 pm Is syb too good for us all of a sudden?

I try to limit my posting to business hours. The rest of these guys have it covered.

Thanks guys.

That'll be $450

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:32 pm That'll be $450

Now I see why so many of you chimed in.

My fee is on contingency, that's why I was short and to the point.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:57 pm

The deep state just keeps getting deeper.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:47 pm My fee is on contingency, that's why I was short and to the point.

Must post.

Yeah, this is pretty much right. The only way I could see the Supreme Court ever get involved is purely for optics and specifically to tell the Trump Campaign to pound sand. The case is also going to be moot after tomorrow.

mister d wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:24 pm

Uh...yeah...the quoted piece is correct. Bernie & Liz had their chance in the primary and were rejected in favor of the "status quo" if that's how they want to put it. Again, why are we giving any attention to anything Sirota is involved with or even adjacent to?

Sirota is starting up his own progressive media outlet, or trying to anyway. The left could really use a better mouthpiece.

Plus the whole idea of removing Warren from the knifes-edge Senate is so batshit stupid that no one who suggests it should be taken seriously by anyone on the left side of the spectrum.

Especially for a paper pushing administrative job.

Powell said Brian Kemp and Bernie worked together to rig the election for Biden and Loeffler. Powell is going to be disbarred after all this.

Wow. They just threw Powell off the bus.

making

So apparently Sidney Powell is too crazy even for Giuliani.

Rex wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:56 pm

making

Now

First reports of Cabinet positions.



Shockingly qualified. What a concept.