Our long national nightmare is over

[Joe Guy]

So, if I went to small claims court and claimed that a neighbor tore the tag off of my mattress, rendering it unsalable, and my proof was that any high school student could do it, the court should take my case seriously?

Maybe I'll ask Rudy...

[Sue U]

One thing that is readily apparent is these people are not practicing law; they are performing purely political theater, using the courts as their stage. These are not serious lawsuits addressing substantive issues, they are media fodder for the Trumpist propaganda machine. It is an abuse of the system and a waste of judicial resources. But it keeps the grift going.

[Darren]

One thing that is readily apparent is these people are not practicing law; they are performing purely political theater, using the courts as their stage. These are not serious lawsuits addressing substantive issues, they are media fodder for the Trumpist propaganda machine. It is an abuse of the system and a waste of judicial resources. But it keeps the grift going.

Does the fact that the SCOTUS accepted the cases mean they're involved in the public theater?

I thought the SCOTUS never accepted cases that didn't have merit or a substantive issue that required their consideration and decision. Am I wrong?

[Darren]

One thing that is readily apparent is these people are not practicing law; they are performing purely political theater, using the courts as their stage. These are not serious lawsuits addressing substantive issues, they are media fodder for the Trumpist propaganda machine. It is an abuse of the system and a waste of judicial resources. But it keeps the grift going.

Does the fact that the SCOTUS accepted the cases mean they're involved in the public theater?

I thought the SCOTUS never accepted cases that didn't have merit or a substantive issue that required their consideration and decision. Am I wrong?

BTW, have you read the details of the investigation into Hunter Biden's excellent adventure with China? Do you wonder who the big guy was that Hunter referenced.

[BoSoxGal]

One thing that is readily apparent is these people are not practicing law; they are performing purely political theater, using the courts as their stage. These are not serious lawsuits addressing substantive issues, they are media fodder for the Trumpist propaganda machine. It is an abuse of the system and a waste of judicial resources. But it keeps the grift going.

Does the fact that the SCOTUS accepted the cases mean they're involved in the public theater?

I thought the SCOTUS never accepted cases that didn't have merit or a substantive issue that required their consideration and decision. Am I wrong?

SCOTUS has only ‘accepted’ the case insofar as it has been filed by Texas (motion for leave to file as Sue explained above) and set some deadlines including the deadline for the respondent states to reply, which they have now done - including some excellent arguments which you should read and digest.

SCOTUS normally meets Fridays in conference so they may actually consider the filing then, or they may take longer. That’s when they’ll decide whether to actually ‘accept’ the case, i.e., to consider arguments on the merits.

I’d bet my life that ain’t gonna happen. All of those justices, even Thomas and Kavanaugh, must think more of the SCOTUS’s legacy than to allow something so despicably unconstitutional to sully the hallowed chambers.

Here is the Supreme Court docket, with filings attached, for this case. Explore the links and read the actual legal arguments - turn off the Trumpist propaganda. Maybe then you’ll understand why even Ohio’s Republican attorney general is on board saying this lawsuit is an insult to democracy.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2o155.html

There are many documents to get through there, but here’s the one that might persuade you, coming as it does from conservative Republicans.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

[datsunaholic]

There are many documents to get through there, but here’s the one that might persuade you, coming as it does from conservative Republicans.

Even documents from Republicans won't convince Darren that the case is lost. Because now any Republican that hasn't pledged unwavering loyalty to Trump must be a member of the "Deep State" (as are all Democrats).

[Sue U]

It's funny that five years ago "the deep state" was literally a joke, but now it is an article of faith among the wingnut right.

[Guinevere]

[Guinevere]

[Guinevere]

Link to the docket here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.as ... 2o155.html

[Sue U]

On Tuesday I sat in a seminar on appellate advocacy and one of the topics was the Preliminary Statement. This one is really well done; it's no wonder this guy is Chief D.A.G. of the Appellate Litigation Section for the Penna. AG's office. Right off the bat, it succinctly frames the matter in the "big picture," then immediately zeroes in on the core issues raised and checks off the top three or four reasons the court should rule in favor of the Commonwealth, all before you've even gotten out of the second paragraph.

This guy is good, and he's also not above throwing some serious shade before he goes through the list of Texas's claims, dismantling each one in a few short sentences and citations:

Texas offers statements about Pennsylvania law and Pennsylvania’s election administration. Befitting of Texas’s distance and unfamiliarity with either, those statements are littered with patently false allegations and conclusions.

[Guinevere]

Some of the best legal writing I have read in a while!

Other than your papers, of course...

[ex-khobar Andy]

I enjoyed the amici curiae brief linked by BSG especially the reference to the Texas submission as being 'jiggery-pokery.' I wasn't aware that this was an arcane legal term so I looked it up on wiktionary. Along with the expected definitions of (1) Trickery or misrepresentation and (2) Manipulation, there was (3) (euphemistic) Sexual intercourse. I didn't know that. Maybe therefore it's lawyerese for 'these guys are fucking idiots.'

I was interested to see the pleading: please accept this even though it's on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. I know there's a legal size 8 1/2 x 14 (think foolscap, Gob) but I assumed that it was just traditional rather than a requirement which can be waived.

[Guinevere]

Appeals courts still have lots of rules about paper size, cover color, type face font and size, margin size, etc. They seem arcane, but they have some purpose behind them. Most are designed to make sure everyone has the same fair chance to make their case (by not squeezing in more words/page, etc), and to make like easier for clerks/ judges (easy to know which brief belongs to which party, without knowing anything about the case, by the color of the cover).

I don’t do a lot of appellate work, but I am unaware of any court in MA that requires 8x14 (legal sized) paper.

[ex-khobar Andy]

One thing that is readily apparent is these people are not practicing law; they are performing purely political theater, using the courts as their stage. These are not serious lawsuits addressing substantive issues, they are media fodder for the Trumpist propaganda machine. It is an abuse of the system and a waste of judicial resources. But it keeps the grift going.

Maybe someone linked to this before and I missed it - apologies if so - but there's a good piece here arguing for Giuliani's disbarment or at least sanctioning (such as making him pay the other side's costs) for frivolous litigation.

[Guinevere]

There is an organized effort by a group of lawyers called Lawyers Defending American Democracy to have sanctions brought against Giuliani and the other Trump lawyers for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in dishonesty, deceit, and unethical conduct. Probably not going anywhere, but we (I'm a signatory) are trying to approach this like lawyers.

[Guinevere]

Oh look, the "Christian Family Coalition" filed an request to file an amicus brief, concluding its proposed brief with:

Unless resolved now, the issues before this Court will fester, worsen and explode later, in the next election cycle, or sooner. For the sake of the nation and its democratic principles, it is an existential imperative that this Court grant the TRO, preliminary injunction, and other relief which Texas seeks, and ultimately enter judgment in Texas’ favor.

Emphasis mine. Insert vomit emoji here....

Pretty sure said "coalition" doesn't speak for my Christian family, or many that I know, on this point.

[Sue U]

I don’t do a lot of appellate work, but I am unaware of any court in MA that requires 8x14 (legal sized) paper.

I have been in practice more than 25 years and have never seen legal size paper used except for wills and deeds (and nowadays not even for that). Briefs filed in the US Supreme Court are printed up as small booklets their own special size; I've had half a dozen cases go that far, and I hire a specialty printing service to do the worrying for me about font, format, page size, table of contents, table of authorities, etc. I do a pretty fair amount of appellate work, and all other state and federal courts I've been in now use standard 8.5x11 size pages -- but hardly anyone even uses paper anymore at all; it's all electronic filing now.

[Sue U]

I enjoyed the amici curiae brief linked by BSG especially the reference to the Texas submission as being 'jiggery-pokery.' I wasn't aware that this was an arcane legal term so I looked it up on wiktionary.

Including this expression in the brief was a deliberate choice; it is intended to evoke the interpretive philosophy of Antonin Scalia, who famously used the term in his dissent in the court's Obamacare case, King v. Burwell. Its intention is to get the reader to think, "What would Scalia say about this argument?"

[Big RR]

That brings back memories; as a young associate I can recall many a late night in the printers waiting and proofreading the galley copies (I think that's what they were called) before they were finalized--it was extended times of doing nothing followed by shorter times of pure terror (because any typo or missed line/word would send the senior partner through the roof). A lot of that is probably gone now with efilings and word processing (the same is true of hauling cases of documents to depositions or in person closings of business deals with multiple copy set to be executed, when everything can be accessed/even signed online.