Presidential Election 2020

[FriscoDawg]

How many have there been?

We won't count the lawsuits filed contesting the election (or just part of the election, since the down ticket elections don't seem to be getting protested much). Because I guess those are in support of some other guy running for president named Trump. So they can be frivolous, but shouldn't be counted against the evidence that the election has been scrutinized and found fair. Because. . .reasons? But sure, let's pad the GPA a little for the GOP. I'm sure nobody has been making the argument of "look at all the lawsuits, see, there is lots of doubt."

How many lawsuits did they officially lose? Any? Batting 1.000 on getting this sucker overturned are we? Or was it just that they ran into that 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10, but not 60) super-liberal, totally on the take, completely ignorant of federal and constitutional law judge(s)?

Only one constitutional challenge has been addressed (so far) by by the ultimate arbiter (SCOTUS). And that was the Texas case that was improperly tossed by Chief Wimp Roberts on specious standing grounds. Several other cases are still pending, but have kicked as far down the road as the Chief Wimp can kick.

My scorecard still shows 0 for 0 because the Deep State judiciary hasn't allowed the challenges to proceed. But don't think for one second that the investigations have stopped, because the evidence will be brought to light. Just like Kennedy's fraudulent win over Nixon in 1960 is now an admitted fact.

[Guisslapp]

Only one constitutional challenge has been addressed (so far) by by the ultimate arbiter (SCOTUS). And that was the Texas case that was improperly tossed by Chief Wimp Roberts on specious standing grounds. Several other cases are still pending, but have kicked as far down the road as the Chief Wimp can kick.

My scorecard still shows 0 for 0 because the Deep State judiciary hasn't allowed the challenges to proceed. But don't think for one second that the investigations have stopped, because the evidence will be brought to light. Just like Kennedy's fraudulent win over Nixon in 1960 is now an admitted fact.

Standing is a constitutional requirement, a necessary and important one. It was a clearly correct decision.

[inudesu]

Only one constitutional challenge has been addressed (so far) by by the ultimate arbiter (SCOTUS). And that was the Texas case that was improperly tossed by Chief Wimp Roberts on specious standing grounds. Several other cases are still pending, but have kicked as far down the road as the Chief Wimp can kick.

My scorecard still shows 0 for 0 because the Deep State judiciary hasn't allowed the challenges to proceed. But don't think for one second that the investigations have stopped, because the evidence will be brought to light. Just like Kennedy's fraudulent win over Nixon in 1960 is now an admitted fact.

So, this raises some questions if you'll indulge me.

1. Just the one case (that was dismissed) by the Supreme Court is now important? And in your view it wasn't heard on "specious standing grounds" despite the fact that "virtually all legal experts had given the lawsuit little chance of succeeding from the moment it was filed?" I know that you and I have a difference on what is and isn't trusted journalism, so maybe you can't take the scotusblog's statement there as fact, but short of polling all legal experts ourselves, that was the impression I'd widely gained about it from the beginning. I mean, even the statement from Alito/Thomas is like "I'd let them file it but not grant other relief."

2. If just that one counts, what were the other ones about? Do you think they were also unfairly lost? All of them? Or just the "good" ones? Would you say there have been any suits filed on behalf of President Trump's election dreams that were correctly dismissed/denied/withdrawn?

3. The Deep State judiciary? Is it even conceivable that in ANY of these cases, a conservative judge ruled against the Trump team because they were wrong? Like, factually wrong (in addition to whatever timing or standing issues existed)? I mean, I think that's the case in all of them, but I'm honestly curious to know if you feel you have to stand by all of them? And if not, is it just the one now?

I don't really know much about Erick Erickson, but as near as I can tell he's well to the right of me (the rest of this piece is all in high praise of Pence and Rick Perry and Nikki Haley). I really don't know what's "lame stream media" past "doesn't back Trump completely" and I don't really care (since I do trust mainstream media reporting even if I would agree we should take all reporting with a grain of salt). So maybe this is that. But even this guy says (after listing all the problems he had with the election, many of which I don't necessarily share):

Instead, Republicans spent most of their time screaming about fraud when the Trump legal team never, ever, ever claimed fraud in court. Republicans spent time claiming voters had voted who should not have. As of today, more than two months after the general election, the GOP has never presented actual names. In their most credible case in Georgia, the President’s team dismissed the case.

To be sure, some fringe websites have presented names, but their information is bogus and has been debunked.
But time and again, instead of focusing on legitimate legal concerns, the GOP focused on false krakens led by Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood. It’s like the GOP campaigned for an Academy Award against Gladiator by putting Rudy in a speedo and filming him with an iPhone while he is flinging his TV remote control yelling “Are you not entertained?” Then some conservatives demanded state legislatures throw out the Electoral College members selected by votes of their citizens — a move that, had the Democrats done it in 2016, would have outraged Republicans.
Instead of exercising any level of humility, Republicans either believed a bunch of lies and would not accept any facts to the contrary or they simply didn’t care and decided to build an army of lies to overwhelm and defeat the truth.

You tried to undermine a lawful election, sold a bunch of well meaning and caring people a bill of lies many of them believed while you all knew better behind the scenes, and saw multiple people die in a storming of the Capitol after encouraging these people with fists in the air and atta-boys.

[johnnylightnin]

Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but did vote for him in 2020.

[inudesu]

And in your view it wasn't heard on "specious standing grounds" despite the fact that "virtually all legal experts had given the lawsuit little chance of succeeding from the moment it was filed?" I know that you and I have a difference on what is and isn't trusted journalism, so maybe you can't take the scotusblog's statement there as fact, but short of polling all legal experts ourselves, that was the impression I'd widely gained about it from the beginning.

Obviously this is not "virtually all legal experts" but at the very least the doubt expressed by these guys (two of whom would be tough to classify as liberal-leaning) has to give credit to the idea that the case's standing (and merits) were somewhat less than obvious (again, I'd go farther than that, but I'm just saying here "at the very least" we're hardly talking "specious").

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general and Texas Supreme Court justice, had said he was “not convinced” by the logic of the case.

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who once served as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s top deputy, called the case “a dangerous violation of federalism” that “will almost certainly fail.”

“Garbage, but dangerous garbage,” was how elections law expert Rick Hasen put it.

(this guy could be left-leaning I guess but would still qualify as a "legal expert").

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12...ction-results/

[Guisslapp]

Any view other than one that says Texas didn’t have standing to bring the suit, is “fringe.”

But, frankly, all of the experts that folks like Frisco have been expressing lately are fringe - not part of the mainstream. And the only way such fringe ideas can garner any support is anti-intellectualism and complete rejection of the mainstream.

This is in essence where populism has headed - when you don’t like reality, invent a new one and write off the mainstream in its entirety so that nothing can refute your fringe bubble.

This can only last so long. Some of the Capitol protestors are learning this lesson the hard way.

[Guisslapp]

And the specious lawsuits that Trump’s unethical lawyers have been filing go beyond the pale. That is why the law licenses are coming under attack right now.

You may have seen that Wood just lost his pro hac vice license in Delaware. Judge noted that the case in Georgia was "textbook frivolous litigation," which included "an error-ridden affidavit," and that the complaint Wood filed in Wisconsin "would not survive a law school civil procedure class."

"What has been shown in Court decisions of our sister States satisfies me that it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to continue Mr. Wood's permission to practice before this court," Karsnitz said. "I acknowledge that I preside over a small part of the legal world in a small state. However, we take pride in our bar."

Seriously, Trump’s arguments are fringe and unsupported. That is why he is chalking up so many losses. His attorneys are making a mockery of the profession - and far too many amateur legal commentators are falling for it.