This may be the dumbest trump lawsuit yet

[Gothmog]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court already rejected a similar lawsuit and I have no idea why trump and Pence suce Joe and Kamala.

Link to tweet

This last-ditch lawsuit, like the dozens of others by Trump and his allies, is almost certain to fail. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court rejected another just like it on Dec. 3, with one conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn calling it a “real stunner.”

“We are invited to invalidate the entire presidential election in Wisconsin by declaring it ‘null’—yes, the whole thing,” Hagedorn wrote. “And there’s more. We should, we are told, enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from certifying the election so that Wisconsin’s presidential electors can be chosen by the legislature instead, and then compel the Governor to certify those electors. At least no one can accuse the petitioners of timidity. Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history.”

Describing the absent evidentiary basis for requesting this relief, Hagedorn said what is at stake is the underpinnings of U.S. democracy.

“While the rough and tumble world of electoral politics may be the prism through which many view this litigation, it cannot be so for us,” he wrote. “In these hallowed halls, the law must rule.”

I have volunteered a ton of time on voter protection efforts and I have read most of the Marc's briefs to date. I have no idea wy trump and pence sued Joe and Kamala and the petition is silent on this also

The complaints do not explain what roles President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris could possibly have in election administration in two Wisconsin counties. County officials are also listed as co-defendants.

[Enterstageleft]

1. Defination of insanity...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It's the same lawsuit that the Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out the other day

because that court didn't have original jurisdiction; the case would have had to originate in a trial court - so that's what the Trumpers just did even though it's still stupid. Most of the named parties are local election officials, but they probably named Biden and Harris for no reason other than to throw a little more red meat to the MAGAts.

[Gothmog]

4. The Dicta in the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling was amusing

There are strong hints as to how the court will rule

[Gothmog]

3. LOL

Link to tweet

[Wounded Bear]

5. They need losses at lower courts to appeal up the chain to USSC...

Hopefully, sanity will prevail when they get there.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Supremes can't do anything once the states have certified.

[Wounded Bear]

8. I'm just relaying what their plan is. I didn't say it was a viable one...nt

[niyad]

9. So what is alito up to?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Alito is the justice to whom emergency applications from Pennsylvania are assigned.

Kelly, the congressman who brought the case in the first place, claimed that the state's change in mail-in voting procedures is unconstitutional, but the The PA Supreme Court ruled against him unanimously. So now Kelly wants to take the case to the US Supreme Court, but if the vote is certified and PA's electors vote for Biden they won't be able to do it. So Kelly is now trying to get the Supremes to issue an emergency injunction to block the completion of any remaining steps in PA's certification of the election results (I don't know what those remaining steps are, since PA certified last week). Initially Alito had ordered the state to submit its reply on the 9th, the day after the "safe harbor" day, then amended the schedule to require the brief to be due on that date. "This timing allows the Court at least in theory to issue some relief by the end of safe harbor day. I would not read too much into this. It shows more respect to the petitioners, and does not make it look like the Court is simply running out the clock on the petition." https://www.goerie.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/06/us-supreme-court-updates-key-deadline-mike-kellys-election-appeal/3850389001/

[niyad]

11. Thank you. That settled my nerves a tiny bit.

[Gothmog]

14. Prof. Hasen thinks that this is a dumb lawsuit

This and the texas lawsuit are two of the dumbest lawsuits todate https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119196

I then noted that because this case presented only a question of state law, there were no apparent grounds to go to the Supreme Court, as the plaintiff announced an intention to do.

Well now the plaintiff has filed an emergency application for an injunction in the Supreme Court, and the federal question presented is: “May a legislature violate its state constitution’s restrictions on the lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections pursuant to Article I, § 4, and Article II, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution? (There’s a second dumb question related to laches that is not even worth the time.)

This is kind of the opposite of the independent state legislature doctrine that we’ve seen in some of the other cases. In those other cases, the argument is that a state legislature cannot be constrained by provisions in a state constitution (as interpreted by a state supreme court) in setting rules for federal elections. This case argues that when a state legislature fails to follow a state constitutional provision, that failure violates the U.S. Constitution. Which provision of the Constitution? The question presented points to provisions in the Constitution that give state legislatures the power to set election rules, so how could that possibly be violated by a state legislature setting election rules?

Even worse, the state supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the state constitution, not the U.S. Supreme Court, and so it is not for the U.S. Supreme Court to say if the PA legislature violated the PA constitution.

The plaintiff wants an order from the U.S. Supreme Court nullifying the effect of the certification of the electors. It is not clear that this kind of remedy is even available. But I do not expect this case to go anywhere at the Supreme Court.

[niyad]

15. Thank you for this information.

[Gothmog]

16. You will like the brief filed by the state of Penn in this case

From Prof. Hasen's website https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119390

Petitioners ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive
invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.” Order, Wis. Voters All. v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, No.
2020AP1930-OA, at 3 (Wis. Dec. 4, 2020) (Hagedorn, J., concurring).

In seeking such unprecedented relief, Petitioners might be expected to present claims of the utmost constitutional gravity. Instead, the pair of claims they advance are fundamentally frivolous. Neither claim was pressed or passed upon below. Neither claim implicates a circuit split. Both claims are mired in procedural and jurisdictional defects that preclude this Court’s review. The first question—which seeks to raise Elections and Electors Clause challenges to Act 77—is not actually presented by this case. And the second question—which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in its application of laches—asks this Court to constitutionalize huge swaths of state procedural law without any credible basis in constitutional principles or this Court’s precedents.

Even if Petitioners could surmount these obstacles, they would still need to justify the relief they seek. This first-of-its-kind injunction raises major constitutional questions. Yet Petitioners address none of them. They do not explain how a remedy premised on massive disenfranchisement would accord with the Due Process Clause, which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules as implemented and described by state officials. Nor do they seek to square their position with the separation of powers, the Twelfth Amendment, or basic principles of federalism—all of which foreclose the injunctive relief that Petitioners seek here.

These failings also explain why equity stands as an insuperable obstacle to Petitioners’ application. “Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly and finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof. The public must have confidence that our Government honors and respects their votes.” Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, No. 20-3371, 2020 WL 7012522, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2020). But Petitioners would throw all that to the wind. After waiting over a year to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this Court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state. They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash. In issuing equitable relief, this Court rightly seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder. So to say that the public interest militates against Petitioners would be a grave understatement. Their suit is nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy. It should meet a swift and decisive end.

This is a truly excellent brief all around.

[niyad]

17. It is, indeed. Thank you for posting it.

[Blue Owl]

7. Go Down Grifting

Are you lucky enough to be on Donny's holiday grift list? Send the billionaire your money! He needs it ever so very badly...

[BGBD]

12. They took

their best shots in the first suits. They aren't very good either, but they were the best they had, even won one of them with little at stake.

However, the idea that there was going to be a "kraken" was just dumb. You would file your best arguments to start.

[Gothmog]

13. Ken Paxton and Texas is challenging for the dumbest lawsuit filed so far

Link to tweet

[Vinca]

18. That's really amazing. The law has never experienced insanity quite like this.

[Gothmog]

19. Juanita Jean- Hi Donald! It's Me, Ken. I Need a Pardon.

Juanita Jean is convinced that Paxton wants a pardon from trump https://juanitajean.com/hi-donald-its-me-ken-i-need-a-pardon/

Oh, this is a cute one.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton just filed all the proper papers with the United States Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 election.

Paxton, an outspoken advocate of President Donald Trump, claims the states “flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots” and ignored rules for how such ballots need to be counted, according to a press release announcing the litigation.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together,” Paxton said in the statement. “Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election.”

Now what Texas has to do with this, I dunno. But, I known for a damn guaranteed fact what Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, has to do with it. He needs a pardon, in fact a couple of them and a blank form he can use in the future, and what better way to get Trump’s attention.

Paxton is currently under indictment for stock fraud and is currently being investigated by the FBI for bribery and abuse of office.