2020 Presidential Race

#96,326
#96,326
AM64 said:
To perhaps determine the possibility/likelihood of further harm? If it had been presented earlier - like before there actually was evidence of problems after the counting started, it would have been more speculative and more easily dismissed?

The courts:

View attachment 335572
Click to expand...

His request was for a temporary restraining order. The judge lists the criteria that need to be satisfied for him to issue one but Mr. Wood failed to meet all of them. Specifically at issue is whether Mr. Wood will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. He contends that he would due to speculation about alleged past fraud. The judge notes this is alleged and also that past fraud (Mr. Wood cites voter fraud in Venezuela connected to Dominion) does not indicate the likelihood for future instances by independent actors. You should read the whole decision because it's pretty thoroughly explained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
#96,329
#96,329
tnmarktx said:
It was my understanding per Wood that equal protection was violated because of vote dilution due to elections being run differently in areas that came from a consent agreement between the SOS and Stacy Abrams. He was seeking the whole election be thrown out in Georgia. A new election to be held for the down ballot and the presidetial results to be decided by the state legislature. Evidence would have to provided as to how equal protection was violated and was not allowed.
Click to expand...

The judge addresses that and I think says that general harm to all voters is not sufficient to show standing for an individual (although i could have misinterpreted that bit). However, that point is moot anyway because he fails to meet the criterion specified on page 6 for an injury-in-fact, which he defines as "an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
 
#96,330
#96,330
Wafflestomper said:
The judge addresses that and I think says that general harm to all voters is not sufficient to show standing for an individual (although i could have misinterpreted that bit). However, that point is moot anyway because he fails to meet the criterion specified on page 6 for an injury-in-fact, which he defines as "an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
Click to expand...
Lin Wood Loses Again as Federal Appeals Court Savages Georgia Election Lawsuit
See page 11 I believe I had the wrong case.
 
#96,331
#96,331
GSD82 said:
I hate you, now that’s all I can hear with that smart ass smirk
Click to expand...

Harris is so uppity and so obnoxious being a snooty fake person thinking her sh!t doesn't stink to high heaven.
Democrats didn't even like her when she decided to run for president that they turned their noses up at her.
Some Democrats still think she's nothing but gutter trash now just like most republicans do. She's fake as hell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and GSD82
#96,332
#96,332
tnmarktx said:
Lin Wood Loses Again as Federal Appeals Court Savages Georgia Election Lawsuit
See page 11 I believe I had the wrong case.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this is substantially different. The court stated that standing requires a particularized injury but found that what Mr. Wood alleged was generalized, since anyone in GA could have argued the same thing. The court also noted that Mr. Wood could have himself chosen to vote via absentee ballot. Hard to claim injury when he could have chosen to put himself in the "preferred class" of voters, as he says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#96,333
#96,333
Wafflestomper said:
I'm not sure how this is substantially different. The court stated that standing requires a particularized injury but found that what Mr. Wood alleged was generalized, since anyone in GA could have argued the same thing. The court also noted that Mr. Wood could have himself chosen to vote via absentee ballot. Hard to claim injury when he could have chosen to put himself in the "preferred class" of voters, as he says.
Click to expand...
The ruling makes no sense. It would only have standing if those that voted in person would have filed? If election laws are not followed or laws in general are not applied equally it clearly violates the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,336
#96,336
MontyPython said:
Oh, noes... the rule of law prevails again.

Must suck to hate democracy. You got my feelz brah.

Federal judge throws out Gohmert lawsuit asking Pence to interfere in Electoral College count
Click to expand...

Pence asked the court to throw it out...posted this morning. You need to read it. It was about tasking the case to the role of Congress, not Pence the man.
 
#96,340
#96,340
tnmarktx said:
The ruling makes no sense. It would only have standing if those that voted in person would have filed? If election laws are not followed or laws in general are not applied equally it clearly violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

No. A person has to show that they have been uniquely harmed. So the fact that any voter in Georgia could claim the same legal injury makes what he's claiming not unique. Read the discussion section (beginning on page 8) of that link you sent me. It explains why. I can't copy and paste from the link but here's a salient point from it:

Screenshot_20210101-212703_Chrome.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velo Vol
#96,341
#96,341
Wafflestomper said:
No. A person has to show that they have been uniquely harmed. So the fact that any voter in Georgia could claim the same legal injury makes what he's claiming not unique. Read the discussion section (beginning on page 8) of that link you sent me. It explains why. I can't copy and paste from the link but here's a salient point from it:

View attachment 335633
Click to expand...
So procedural it is. Because of procedural issues no one can challenge an election?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,342
#96,342
tnmarktx said:
The ruling makes no sense. It would only have standing if those that voted in person would have filed? If election laws are not followed or laws in general are not applied equally it clearly violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

That's the "beauty" of standing. If one person is inconsequential, then so is everybody else; so in the end all are equally deprived. Which sounds a bit like how totalitarians always treat people - they wind up equally disadvantaged except for the people running the show. The judicial branch is our own special dictatorship.
 
#96,343
#96,343
tnmarktx said:
You know dick about democracy.
Click to expand...
That's a funny one considering your recent posting history. Your ill-fated resiliency should be admired, yet rejected on its evidentiary content. Your Trumplican loyalty, as misguided as it is, can be commended by any measure of support
 
#96,344
#96,344
tnmarktx said:
So procedural it is. Because of procedural issues no one can challenge an election?
Click to expand...

The Election has been challenged in some fifty law suits. That hardly accounts as "no one." Cases before federal courts typically consist of appeals from state courts. It is called due process. Cases introduced directly into a federal court must meet requirements to be heard. Gohmert's suit did not even begin to meet the necessary burdens. It was a ridiculous, public relations stunt, without legal merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#96,345
#96,345
USAFgolferVol said:
That's a funny one considering your recent posting history. Your ill-fated resiliency should be admired, yet rejected on its evidentiary content. Your Trumplican loyalty, as misguided as it is, can be commended by any measure of support
Click to expand...
Might be the dumbest post yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSD82
#96,346
#96,346
Vol Main said:
The Election has been challenged in some fifty law suits. That hardly accounts as "no one." Cases before federal courts typically consist of appeals from state courts. It is called due process. Cases introduced directly into a federal court must meet requirements to be heard. Gohmert's suit did not even begin to meet the necessary burdens. It was a ridiculous, public relations stunt, without legal merit.
Click to expand...
Who the hell was talking about this case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,347
#96,347
tnmarktx said:
So procedural it is. Because of procedural issues no one can challenge an election?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that, in a case where the plaintiff alleges the state has not followed its own rules in an election, that the court should similarly disregard its own rules and agree to hear his case?

The judge clearly stated that the federal court has limited jurisdiction and that Mr. Wood failed to show that his case was within its jurisdiction. He also stated that Mr. Wood could have filed in state court. So it seems like your complaint should be with Lin Wood, who continues to file federal cases where he lacks standing. I could speculate as to why he's doing that but it's clearly not someone else's fault.
 
#96,348
#96,348
AM64 said:
That's the "beauty" of standing. If one person is inconsequential, then so is everybody else; so in the end all are equally deprived. Which sounds a bit like how totalitarians always treat people - they wind up equally disadvantaged except for the people running the show. The judicial branch is our own special dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Exactly how much do you want the federal courts to intervening whenever someone feels they could be treated differently than someone else? Weird that you call a court declining to stop an election as an example of a dictatorship.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top