5 ms·

Good job. You cherry picked three lawsuits. Here's all 54. [0] Oh, and by the way, if a judge dismisses a case on procedural, jurisdictional or standing and th

Good job. You cherry picked three lawsuits. Here's all 54. [0] Oh, and by the way, if a judge dismisses a case on procedural, jurisdictional or standing and then goes on to provide an opinion of the claims/evidence presented in a complaint -- it doesn't mean that the adjudication was based upon the merits of the case. So the claim that most of the dismissed cases were for procedural, jurisdictional or standing reasons still stands. A judge is required to evaluate the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Most of these cases didn't get that far. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

aw1621107 6y ago
You're replying to points I never made nor implied. The claim I was addressing: > Point to a single court case in the US regarding this election year where evidence was presented in court and judged. The cases I listed are cases where 1) evidence was (arguably) presented in court, in the form of affidavits/expert opinions/reports/testimony attached to the complaint, and 2) judged to be insufficient for one reason or another. The fact that other lawsuits were dismissed solely on procedural or jurisdictional grounds is irrelevant for the purposes of addressing that specific claim. Law v. Whitmer, in particular, does not appear to have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and is sufficient on its own to prove both the claim I originally addressed and the other part of GGP's comment incorrect: > CONCLUSION > The Contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds set forth in NRS 293.410 to contest the November 3, 2020 General Election "Cherry-picking" is also meaningless here, as I made no extrapolation about post-election lawsuits in general based on those 3 cases. ---- > Oh, and by the way, if a judge dismisses a case on procedural, jurisdictional or standing and then goes on to provide an opinion of the claims/evidence presented in a complaint -- it doesn't mean that the adjudication was based upon the merits of the case. Well, sure, but it also doesn't mean that the ruling was not based on upon the merits of the case either. A case can be dismissed for multiple reasons, after all; for example, King v. Whitmer was dismissed partially on standing grounds and because the judge found that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits (not strictly a final ruling on the merits, but based upon the merits nonetheless). In addition, the line between "procedural dismissal" and "ruling upon the merits" can get a bit hazy if the dismissal relies upon evaluation of evidence provided by the complainant. For example, Rule 9(b) requires federal fraud claims to be pled with particularity. If the provided evidence fails to satisfy Rule 9(b), then the case can be dismissed. Does this count as a procedural dismissal (not meeting the requirements of a rule), or a ruling based upon the merits of the case (insufficient evidence)? ---- And also note that I said: > Kind of depends on what precisely you mean by "presented in court and judged" The commenter I replied to didn't give a precise definition of "presented in court and judged", so I worked off what I hope is a reasonable interpretation of the phrase.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  A judge providing an opinion is not adjudication. And "presenting in court" is not the same as "the judge read the complaint and here's what they think about it before dismissing it for non-meritorious reasons".
  - aw1621107 6y ago
    What is "adjudication" and "presenting in court", then?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > A judge providing an opinion is not adjudication. If it is a tangential opinion (not supporting one of the decisive grounds for an action), sure. If it is a opinion that is part of the basis for a grounds of dismissal that inherently asks whether, even before considering how the other side might challenge it, the evidence could ever support the plaintiff winning, it absolutely is adjudication. The difference is important because the last can be (and has been in some of the cases at issue) part of the analysis when dismissing for failure to state a claim.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Oh, and by the way, if a judge dismisses a case on procedural, jurisdictional or standing and then goes on to provide an opinion of the claims/evidence presented in a complaint -- it doesn't mean that the adjudication was based upon the merits of the case. That...depends. “Failure to state a claim” is one of the bases that is being described as procedural, but it can involve not just a analysis of whether the plaintiff has recited the legal elements of an actual offense, but whether the evidence the plaintiff has identified that they can present would be sufficient, before considering any potential counterevidence, to make a prima facie case for facts that would justify the claim stated. Where that analysis is conducted, and it is concluded in the negative requiring dismissal, while the basis may be characterized as “procedural”, it includes exactly a decision about the merits of the case. That is what has occurred in several of the cases at issue where failure to state a claim was one of the grounds for dismissal.

aw1621107 6y ago

You're replying to points I never made nor implied. The claim I was addressing: > Point to a single court case in the US regarding this election year where evidence was presented in court and judged. The cases I listed are cases where 1) evidence was (arguably) presented in court, in the form of affidavits/expert opinions/reports/testimony attached to the complaint, and 2) judged to be insufficient for one reason or another. The fact that other lawsuits were dismissed solely on procedural or jurisdictional grounds is irrelevant for the purposes of addressing that specific claim. Law v. Whitmer, in particular, does not appear to have been dismissed on procedural grounds, and is sufficient on its own to prove both the claim I originally addressed and the other part of GGP's comment incorrect: > CONCLUSION > The Contestants failed to meet their burden to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any of the grounds set forth in NRS 293.410 to contest the November 3, 2020 General Election "Cherry-picking" is also meaningless here, as I made no extrapolation about post-election lawsuits in general based on those 3 cases. ---- > Oh, and by the way, if a judge dismisses a case on procedural, jurisdictional or standing and then goes on to provide an opinion of the claims/evidence presented in a complaint -- it doesn't mean that the adjudication was based upon the merits of the case. Well, sure, but it also doesn't mean that the ruling was not based on upon the merits of the case either. A case can be dismissed for multiple reasons, after all; for example, King v. Whitmer was dismissed partially on standing grounds and because the judge found that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits (not strictly a final ruling on the merits, but based upon the merits nonetheless). In addition, the line between "procedural dismissal" and "ruling upon the merits" can get a bit hazy if the dismissal relies upon evaluation of evidence provided by the complainant. For example, Rule 9(b) requires federal fraud claims to be pled with particularity. If the provided evidence fails to satisfy Rule 9(b), then the case can be dismissed. Does this count as a procedural dismissal (not meeting the requirements of a rule), or a ruling based upon the merits of the case (insufficient evidence)? ---- And also note that I said: > Kind of depends on what precisely you mean by "presented in court and judged" The commenter I replied to didn't give a precise definition of "presented in court and judged", so I worked off what I hope is a reasonable interpretation of the phrase.

disgrunt 6y ago
A judge providing an opinion is not adjudication. And "presenting in court" is not the same as "the judge read the complaint and here's what they think about it before dismissing it for non-meritorious reasons".
- aw1621107 6y ago
  What is "adjudication" and "presenting in court", then?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > A judge providing an opinion is not adjudication. If it is a tangential opinion (not supporting one of the decisive grounds for an action), sure. If it is a opinion that is part of the basis for a grounds of dismissal that inherently asks whether, even before considering how the other side might challenge it, the evidence could ever support the plaintiff winning, it absolutely is adjudication. The difference is important because the last can be (and has been in some of the cases at issue) part of the analysis when dismissing for failure to state a claim.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Oh, and by the way, if a judge dismisses a case on procedural, jurisdictional or standing and then goes on to provide an opinion of the claims/evidence presented in a complaint -- it doesn't mean that the adjudication was based upon the merits of the case. That...depends. “Failure to state a claim” is one of the bases that is being described as procedural, but it can involve not just a analysis of whether the plaintiff has recited the legal elements of an actual offense, but whether the evidence the plaintiff has identified that they can present would be sufficient, before considering any potential counterevidence, to make a prima facie case for facts that would justify the claim stated. Where that analysis is conducted, and it is concluded in the negative requiring dismissal, while the basis may be characterized as “procedural”, it includes exactly a decision about the merits of the case. That is what has occurred in several of the cases at issue where failure to state a claim was one of the grounds for dismissal.