3 ms·

Really? Which court heard these grievances? The only court with the actual jurisdiction to hear them, The SCOTUS, dismissed the only case brought before them

Really? Which court heard these grievances? The only court with the actual jurisdiction to hear them, The SCOTUS, dismissed the only case brought before them about it on "standing". And before you claim that it was absurd to even ask the court to hear the case at all: two of the justices, who I can promise have a better understanding of constitutional law than anybody posting on hacker news, argued to hear the case. It wasn't heard.

joshuamorton 6y ago
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... Here's a summary of the cases. I'll note some of the summaries of the various specific cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence: - Arizona, Bowyer v. Ducey : The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant. The judge singled out the fraud allegations being put forth, writing that they "fail in their particularity and plausibility". The judge ruled that there would be "extreme, and entirely unprecedented" harm to Arizona's 3+ million voters to entertain the lawsuit "at this late date". - Arizona, Ward v. Jackson: Arizona Supreme Court rejected her appeal, concluding that Ward presented no evidence of misconduct - Georgia: The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late - Georgia: The judge stated that Wood failed to show that he had been harmed, while his proposal would "harm the public in countless ways". The Trump-appointed judge concluded that there was "no basis in fact or in law" to stop Georgia's certification of its election results (in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump) at such a late stage, as this would "breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement" - Michigan: Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on November 6, finding that the plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions ... Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs' pleadings do not set forth a cause of action." The judge noted that "sinister, fraudulent motives" were alleged, but that the "plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible". - Minnesota: The court's decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. "Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020," the ruling states. It goes on to say that "asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable." (Read as: If this was a concern over the law, it should have been filed pre-election, This was only filed because they lost) - Pennsylvania: The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the board to count over 2,200 ballots that lacked a date or voter address, or were not sealed with secrecy sleeves, claiming the votes are invalid. The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they "do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots." They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, "misconduct", or "impropriety" related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings. - Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled 5–2 on November 17 against the Trump campaign, saying Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables; local county officials are left to decide. - Pennsylvania: Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, citing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations", noting that "[i]n the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state ... [o]ur people, laws and institutions demand more". Need I continue? > two of the justices The same two justices noted that the the relief being requested by the trump campaign weren't possible, so it wouldn't matter anyway.

joshuamorton 6y ago

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... Here's a summary of the cases. I'll note some of the summaries of the various specific cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence: - Arizona, Bowyer v. Ducey : The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant. The judge singled out the fraud allegations being put forth, writing that they "fail in their particularity and plausibility". The judge ruled that there would be "extreme, and entirely unprecedented" harm to Arizona's 3+ million voters to entertain the lawsuit "at this late date". - Arizona, Ward v. Jackson: Arizona Supreme Court rejected her appeal, concluding that Ward presented no evidence of misconduct - Georgia: The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late - Georgia: The judge stated that Wood failed to show that he had been harmed, while his proposal would "harm the public in countless ways". The Trump-appointed judge concluded that there was "no basis in fact or in law" to stop Georgia's certification of its election results (in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump) at such a late stage, as this would "breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement" - Michigan: Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on November 6, finding that the plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions ... Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs' pleadings do not set forth a cause of action." The judge noted that "sinister, fraudulent motives" were alleged, but that the "plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible". - Minnesota: The court's decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. "Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020," the ruling states. It goes on to say that "asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable." (Read as: If this was a concern over the law, it should have been filed pre-election, This was only filed because they lost) - Pennsylvania: The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the board to count over 2,200 ballots that lacked a date or voter address, or were not sealed with secrecy sleeves, claiming the votes are invalid. The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they "do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots." They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, "misconduct", or "impropriety" related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings. - Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled 5–2 on November 17 against the Trump campaign, saying Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables; local county officials are left to decide. - Pennsylvania: Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, citing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations", noting that "[i]n the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state ... [o]ur people, laws and institutions demand more". Need I continue? > two of the justices The same two justices noted that the the relief being requested by the trump campaign weren't possible, so it wouldn't matter anyway.