Trump's Pennsylvania Appeal Blasted Sky High
Please consider Third Circuit Rejects Trump's Appeal in Broad Challenge to Pa. Election by Law.Com.
Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas said there was no evidence to support the campaign’s argument that, based on alleged restrictions on its poll watchers, and measures taken to allow voters to cure defective ballots, the election was tilted against it. Bibas is a Trump appointee. The decision is non-precedential.
Bibas said the lawsuit only raises issues of state law and fails to raise any federal discrimination claims, therefore the lower court acted correctly in dismissing the lawsuit last week.
“The campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes,” Bibas said in the 21-page ruling. “Calling something discrimination does not make it so.”
“I don’t want to pretend that, at the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s all law and politics has nothing to do with it … but you’re talking about a whole different scale here,” Duquesne Law professor Bruce Ledewitz, who focuses on constitutional law, told The Legal following Brann’s ruling. “He will be asking the U.S. Supreme Court to break all precedent, to find something where there’s nothing there, and to do what no other court’s done.”
Actual Ruling Page 20 and 21
Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections. The ballots here are governed by Pennsylvania election law. No federal law requires poll watchers or specifies where they must live or how close they may stand when votes are counted. Nor does federal law govern whether to count ballots with minor state-law defects or let voters cure those defects. Those are all issues of state law, not ones that we can hear. And earlier lawsuits have rejected those claims.
Seeking to turn those state-law claims into federal ones, the Campaign claims discrimination. But its alchemy cannot transmute lead into gold. The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter. It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile.
And there is no basis to grant the unprecedented injunction sought here. First, for the reasons already given, the Campaign is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Second, it shows no irreparable harm, offering specific challenges to many fewer ballots than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. Third, the Campaign is responsible for its delay and repetitive litigation. Finally, the public interest strongly favors finality, counting every lawful voter’s vote, and not disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvania voters who voted by mail. Plus, discarding those votes could disrupt every other election on the ballot.
Here is the full Ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reasons Why the Supreme Court Won't Get Involved
- Election law is a state issue. Giuliani tried multiple times in multiple states to make federal law an issue. He failed in every attempt.
- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada have all certified the election for Biden.
- Trump needs to succeed in not one case in one state, but in multiple cases in multiple states. The Supreme Court is likely to reject hearing cases on grounds they are moot.
Point three is a denial of writ of certiorari because the case is moot, that is, the Supreme Court will refuse to take the case because decision will make no difference in the outcome of the election.
I commented on the writ of certiorari in Voters, Not Lawyers, Choose the President.
I do so again to discuss the Law.Com opinion as mentioned by the appeals court regarding the fact this is a state issue.
Reflections on Media Bias and Trump's Strategy
Trump Cult Syndrome
Every day I am told the the Supreme Court will decide this for Trump. I have a huge collection of "just wait and see" bookmarks saved up.
Here's a typical comment from today.
The clear fact of the matter is Team Trump led by Rudy Giuliani presented and lost every case in ways practically begging the Supreme Court not to hear them!
And it was a Trump-appointed lawyer who issued this latest scathing blast at Rudy Giuliani.
Even still, the believers march on.
Trump's legal team knew this was futile (or they are even more incompetent than I thought).
That's why a number prominent law firms dropped out of these cases leaving the #1 lap dog, Rudy Giuliani dangling in the wind by himself.
Post-election, Trump's legal strategy is not to win and never was. The strategy is to pretend there is a case so the other lap dogs will continue to suck up the Kool-Aid working up the cult followers to a feverish pitch in hopes of casting doubt on the election.
That strategy was arguably a success.
If you actually believe it's likely the Supreme Court will hand this election to Trump, please look in the mirror to see someone with TCS.