Politics - News Analysis
Trump’s Pennsylvania Lawsuit Thrown Out with a Scathing Conclusion by Federalist Society Judge
First thing to know. Generally speaking, lawsuits move about as fast as glaciers, even worse in federal court, at least civil cases. There is one way to ensure one’s case is heard quickly and ruled upon right away. One must claim the need for a temporary restraining order because otherwise significant “irreparable harm” will hurt the plaintiffs filing the matter.
These temporary restraining orders can be awfully tough to win because upon filing them – like, immediately with the complaint – you have to have enough reliable facts attached to the complaint to demonstrate that what you’re saying is true. Do that and you’re only halfway to where you need to be. You also need the legal arguments that demonstrate you’ll likely win in the end. One can’t do that without arguing a lot of law along with your perfect facts.
And now you know exactly why team Trump has had so many cases thrown out so quickly and unceremoniously.
Trump’s “last best case,” or the “last best shot” (we can’t be certain there isn’t some small case still left hanging out there somewhere, we are sure that this is the one upon which they strongly relied), was a Pennsylvania case – the one Rudy signed as “lead attorney?” Yeah, that one. Today, it got tossed out with last week’s leftover enchilada.
There is a great thread that takes one through each step. But having already given everyone a brief overview of how these work above, we’ll just hit the highlights working toward the summation – which should be read aloud to Trump, just for fun, so he can see what he paid for. As per usual, just read straight down from the top to the next one to save space:
4. "One might expect that when
seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption , such that this Court would have no option…
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) November 21, 2020
6. "…unpled in the operative
complaint and unsupported by evidence.
In 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.
Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) November 21, 2020
A SINGLE VOTER, never mind “all” voters in a single state.
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 21, 2020
IT GETS BETTER:
Conservative twitter is erupting w these Obama-judge takes, but it's all delusional. Judge Brann was a Federalist Society member who served on the Pa. GOP State Comm, on his county Republican committee for 18 years. He reportedly was picked by Toomey.https://t.co/d9GS0GeuxT https://t.co/8wpfC07gUs
— Matthew Stiegler (@MatthewStiegler) November 22, 2020
In case you are wondering what Judge Brann’s message to the Trump campaign was when he said their case was ‘DENIED AS MOOT’ and ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ watch the last five seconds of this video pic.twitter.com/E5ILa9tV39
— MeidasTouch.com (@MeidasTouch) November 22, 2020
“With prejudice” means “don’t change a few paragraphs and file this shit again.”
Judge Brann's opinion is significant not only because it rejects Trump's lawsuit, but because it appropriately memorializes—for history—that the President of the United States tried to disenfranchise 7 million voters. https://t.co/tmRxOy8BL1 pic.twitter.com/lE01h7fh1Z
— Matthew Segal (@segalmr) November 21, 2020
PA Judge Brann is not having it, writing the Trump campaign lawyers "ask this Court to disenfranchise
almost seven million voters…. One might expect that when
seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and…
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 22, 2020
We thought you’d like to hear from a MAGA head who is convinced that the SCOTUS is rigged enough to disenfranchise seven million votes on that type of evidence. They won’t even agree to hear it.
The decision of Judge Brann, appointed by former President Obama, is part of what has to happen. This is how you get to the Supreme Court.
— Carmine Sabia (@CarmineSabia) November 22, 2020
Judge Brann’s decision dismissing the ludicrous Trump suit in PA, made more ludicrous by Rudy Giuliani’s involvement, is an absolute beatdown. https://t.co/M8Wd3xeE1a
— WithPrejudiceHat (@Popehat) November 22, 2020
Judge Matt Brann’s decision in Pennsylvania regarding Trump’s lawsuit. He basically laughed it out of court.
(FWIW – Judge Brann is a Republican who has been a member of the Federalist Society.) pic.twitter.com/ffVVXqmONS
— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) November 22, 2020
[email protected] and on Twitter @JasonMiciak