Federal judge dismisses Trump campaign Pennsylvania lawsuit

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Lumenari

The SCOTUS just doesn't take frivolous cases with NO EVIDENCE.
They have to have a constitutional issue involved

If you recall Bush got to the SCOTUS based on the 14th amendment, a constitutional issue

And that case was over 1000 votes, not 5 states, and a 5 million vote advantage.

So, the only hope for Trump is a fixed SCOTUS?

That won't work either. Those judges aren't fools or stupid

I just LOL'd reading that.

Keep thinking what you are thinking buttercup.

It will make the ending all the more delicious to me.

originally posted by: Annee
SCOTUS chooses the cases they take.

These are not lost cases. These are cases that were tossed out.

For lack of proof & “speculative accusations”.

You are correct Annie, but guess what just changed.....

For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida,Georgia)

For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)

For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)

For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)

They are in good hands

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: Annee
SCOTUS chooses the cases they take.

These are not lost cases. These are cases that were tossed out.

For lack of proof & “speculative accusations”.

You are correct Annie, but guess what just changed.....

For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida,Georgia)

For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)

For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)

For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)

They are in good hands

And you believe these SCOTUS judges are going to be partisan in this case?

a reply to: Willtell

An Obama appointed judge. In the trash he goes.

On May 17, 2012, President Obama nominated Brann to be a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: carewemust
Courts determine the truth NOT the SCOTUS

LOL

Is this your professional opinion as lawyer laureate of ATS?

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: carewemust

The White House declared today that fraud and errors in many states were, to borrow a favorite Democrat 2020 word, "Systemic" (widespread) and Real.

Just because a partisan party cries fraud and offers no credible evidence doesn't mean the SCOTUS gets involved.

And even if they do get involved doesn't mean Trump will win just because they are a conservative majority.

Many of the judges already as conservative republican leaning have totally rejected Trumps claims

The Supreme Court justices aligned themselves yesterday to receive the Evidence that is coming their way.

This was posted all over yesterday, but in case you missed it....

Once again: twitter.com...

a reply to: Ksihkehe

abcnews.go.com...

read this and draw your own conclusions.

The justices have not responded to the president's request to join a still-pending Pennsylvania Republican challenge to that state’s tabulation of late-arriving mail ballots.

The court has also yet to formally consider the state GOP petition asking the court to toss the ballots. In order for the justices to take up the case, it would first have to be discussed at a weekly private conference and the matter has still not been scheduled.

Trump has no other Supreme Court election appeals pending or likely to reach the court before states finalize their results.


“Cases usually are accepted on an appeal if they present issues of great legal importance that must be timely decided. The Pennsylvania case may become irrelevant both legally and politically,” said Jan Baran, former RNC general counsel and longtime Republican election lawyer.

It's no crime to think for yourself.

Despite the apparent urgency, none of the justices has moved to include the case on the court's weekly conference list. Pennsylvania Democrats have not yet filed a formal opposition to the Republicans' petition; that is due Nov. 25.

“My guess is that they're waiting to see what happens with the election, and then when it's crystal clear it won't matter, the justices will deny [the petition],” said ABC News Supreme Court analyst and Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: Annee
SCOTUS chooses the cases they take.

These are not lost cases. These are cases that were tossed out.

For lack of proof & “speculative accusations”.

You are correct Annie, but guess what just changed.....

For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
(Alabama, Florida,Georgia)

For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)

For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)

For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)

They are in good hands

And you believe these SCOTUS judges are going to be partisan in this case?

Payback, why give your slandering tormentors more power ?

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: carewemust

The White House declared today that fraud and errors in many states were, to borrow a favorite Democrat 2020 word, "Systemic" (widespread) and Real.

Just because a partisan party cries fraud and offers no credible evidence doesn't mean the SCOTUS gets involved.

And even if they do get involved doesn't mean Trump will win just because they are a conservative majority.

Many of the judges already as conservative republican leaning have totally rejected Trumps claims

I agree. They will be fair and rule appropriately, based on the totality of the evidence.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
a reply to: Willtell

An Obama appointed judge. In the trash he goes.

On May 17, 2012, President Obama nominated Brann to be a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

The White House is THANKFUL the judge rendered a quick decision, so soon after Rudy's presentation last week.

I believe that a lot of those lawsuits are there just to satisfy bringing things to the supreme court. You can't just bring a lawsuit directly to the supreme court, you need evidence that it was not considered in a lower court properly, cast out when it actually had some basis to it. These are some of the best lawyers in the country and this is a prestigious case, it will boost their elite clientele if the lawyers win the case in the supreme court.

This is my idea of why so many small but actually relevant lawsuits are being done at the state level. Also, if you bring something to the supreme court, you cannot tout the evidence in the media, maybe a little, but not much. If they did blast the evidence all over the media, the high court would probably not even hear the case....the Democrats have a reason for badgering Trump to "give evidence or forget it, it is not real". The Democrats have their lawyers too, and good ones, they want Trump to disqualify his evidence, hence he has been mute while the lawyers do their job.

Sure, it’s possible they’ll take the case but that doesn’t mean an automatic win for Trump when he hasn’t got any facts on his side and he has 5 states to overturn, and the states themselves have already certified the vote as kosher.

Just because Trump screams at the top of his lungs: FRAUD doesn’t mean there is any fraud.

Folks are hoping the SCOTUS will corruptly overturn a LEGAL process just to give Trump the election are leaning on a very thin thread

a reply to: rickymouse

Many of Trump's lawyers have left the case

The cases have been thrown out based on the evidence presented, not any secret evidence somewhere else.

originally posted by: Willtell
Folks are hoping the SCOTUS will corruptly overturn a LEGAL process just to give Trump the election are leaning on a very thin thread

What if fraud and other broken laws prevented that legal process from being accurate?

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Just need to get Rudy on all the Sunday shows sweating hair-dye and screaming.

All will be well. Rudy can sling nonsense to keep all occupied for months to come!

You forget that he is America's Mayor, Rudy called Peter (I mean Rudy the Rock). If you treat him like that one might starting to think that the terrorists were right.

originally posted by: Willtell

Folks are hoping the SCOTUS will corruptly overturn a LEGAL process just to give Trump the election are leaning on a very thin thread

I don’t think I want to be around if that happens.

Sydney Powel went on national television and said their biggest piece of evidence is an affidavit from a young soldier that said he was briefed on something about how the election was or could be stolen.

That is their biggest piece of evidence.

In outright rejecting these cases and not enforcing a recount and audit of every single state, not just the swing states, but all of them, these courts are removing any hope of an election outcome that won't be seen as rigged. The only way to remove all doubt is a recount and audit. This should be standard operating procedure for every election going forward.

There's a large segment of the population that believes fraud was committed, without investigating you're going to tick off a subset of that group. When you do that, the events of this summer will be compared to the Macy's Thanksgiving day parade by comparison to the reaction.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Sydney Powel went on national television and said their biggest piece of evidence is an affidavit from a young soldier that said he was briefed on something about how the election was or could be stolen.

That is their biggest piece of evidence.

Got the clip, news source, or snippet of the transcript?

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Just need to get Rudy on all the Sunday shows sweating hair-dye and screaming.

All will be well. Rudy can sling nonsense to keep all occupied for months to come!

You forget that he is America's Mayor, Rudy called Peter (I mean Rudy the Rock). If you treat him like that one might starting to think that the terrorists were right.

He was. Was a great man. I'm not sure what happened to him. Other than alcoholism.