Search results

A third-year law student could have gotten Michael Flynn off once Barr got in as attorney general and started to turn things around on the prosecution side. She effectively had the boss of the prosecution in her corner. That doesn't take a grand legal mind, just someone with a basic...

Justice Thomas was the last conservative Supreme court justice appointed before the GOP effectively outsourced all conservative judicial nomination and recruitment to the Heritage Foundation. Heritage was formed around judicial philosophy that worked well for things like Religious Liberty and...

The problem with that thought, is those states didn't count the mail in ballots first. Some states can count mail in ballots as they are received but those six aren't those. The vote count could only begin the day of, and democratic counties tend to have much higher density. Beyond that...

A few reasons, a court is more likely to offer immediate and extensive remedy or injunctions in the case of a fraud versus procedure and total errors. That is probably the most immediately relevant. The claims are largely dismissed in part to not having the fillings or arguments done by...

Giuliani was New York criminal prosecutor who hadn't practiced in more than a decade. He had no business handling any of these lawsuits. You need state specific or federal election law specialists, but you are really better off with the states for these sort of cases. Its like having your...

Two things. One the threat of perjury is basically worseless as its nearly impossible to prove both prior knowledge and intent. Only 270 people are convicted per year, in a country of more than 300 million. It so rare as to be nearly nonexistent. And the sheer number of those sworn...

While that is fun, the second response is far more critical one. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf This is the injunction and expedited review. They need a ruling from SCOTUS today on that. (Or in theory Monday...

No. You have until January 6th. Because they didn't include that 1873 Electoral Law as unconstitutional as well. And most original jurisdiction cases take the better part of a year minimum. The supreme court only has hearings 3 days a week and they haven't worked weekends or holidays in the...

Are you kidding? The counter narrative practically writes itself. The bias of the Trump judges trying to coronate him. Between Barrett, what happened to Garland, and the low opinion they had of the other conservatives on the court this couldn't play harder into their practically prepackaged...

Yes, they do need remedy. A judgement of unconstitutionality alone would only abrigate executive action or the effect of lower court judgments going forward in future elections.

The fundamental point of law cannot due to the nature of court and complaint, but the remedy certainly can. They cannot provide remedy that is in volation to valid law. That is why having the legal argument that the 1876 law is unconstitutional would have been so important. If SCOTUS struck...

Not illegally, it is more focused on unconstitutionality than crime if we read the same brief. The burden of proof is lower and this more the Supremes speed. But without specificly trying to striking that 1876 law as unconstitutional as well, it and the time table it sets forth are considered...

A few notes to everyone doing their happy dances right now. 1. There is no hearing currently scheduled. The supreme court has a pretty set schedule and they only do hearings on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, they release/write opinions on Thursday, and they conference primarily on Friday...

Zachowon, with respect, it took 37 days because of how much time between the election and the safe harbor date. Bush v. Gore was decided on the "Safe Harbor" day, December 12th, and part of the decision revolved around that very concept not allowing more recounts.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf Here is the direct link from the official website, so not so much a tweet. Ask and yeh, shall receive. Apologize <deleted content>, teach me to read more closely...

Yes. Repeatedly. Either due to court settlements or the executive action.

SCOTUS might be reluctant to take this up, if only for the precedent it sets. Imagine if any state can object to the application of law within another state. California being able to object to the application of Texas law. I honestly don't think they are going to want to get anywhere near this.

It gets worse, as he's met with nearly every battleground legislature in the last few days along with Trumps legal team, all without masks and for ours. Along with witnesses.

Ah, the moment when you realize you're sharing a fox hole with someone who doesn't exactly have their helmet on straight and seems to be shopping for their uniforms at Clowns R Us. God knows I've had enough of those over the years. When your reaction to your nominal ally is to treat them...

She got a court date in Georgia much faster than I thought. She still needs to file a TRO in Michigan though or they have 3 weeks from being served to respond. And that is without a court date.