Another big No for Donny Tinydesk.
President Donald Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected the campaign’s latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.
Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”
I think that assessment means the Supremes are likely to decline to take the case.
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.
Giuliani’s sweat and Trump’s tantrums don’t count.
The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents. including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.
“Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections,” Bibas said in the opinion, which also denied the campaign’s request to stop the state from certifying its results, a demand he called “breathtaking.”
In fact, Pennsylvania officials had announced Tuesday that they had certified their vote count for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and running mate Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.
Fake news.
Comments
5 responses to “The claims have no merit”
“Calling an election unfair does not make it so.” Just about anyone who’s ever been the parent of a young child has said some version of that at some point.
The geography of the US is breathtakingly beautiful in many parts, and its greatly diminished stock of forests and wildlife likewise. Its people are among the most dynamic in the world, but unfortunately have to spend their entire lives completely covered in treacle: that being the only analogy I can think of for the Constitution of the US.
Judges of the US Supreme Court are political appointees, are politicians in their own right, and can be labeled ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ according to the temper of the times. ‘Your Honour’ is the usual and correct form of address, but ‘Your Gooiness’ would be arguably more accurate.
Judgements are ‘handed down’ from on high, with courtroom internal architecture such as to emphasise that fact. Thus it mirrors the first such ‘handing down’ in recorded history; the process whereby Moses received the Ten Commandments on their original tablets of stone, unfortunately now smashed up and scattered, allegedly according to the wishes of Their Author. (There have been other suggestions made.)
“Giuliani’s sweat and Trump’s tantrums don’t count.” Maybe so, but it is not for want of trying on their part, given that the slammer beckons both of them, treacle and all.
“I think that assessment means the Supremes are likely to decline to take the case.”
I really hope you’re right, but I do not trust this court at all. It’s worse than the one selected Bush 2 by fiat.
Diana Ross was unavailable for comment.
(obligatory) https://youtu.be/I48hr8HhDv0?t=45