[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: While media exult in Pennsylvania federal appeals court loss for Trump lawyers, a big victory in state court halts certification of presidential vote: Don't Fall For The Psy-Ops! The propaganda media are trying to discourage Trump-supporters by reporting on court losses for the legal team and emphasizing what they characterize as disorganization among the hastily assembled teams of lawyers. Don't fall for the psy-ops! The mainstream media had a field day yesterday, citing a scathing decision written by a Trump-appointed judge on a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting an attempt to get hinky Pennsylvania ballots thrown out because of fraud. Read Politico's account for a sample of schadenfreude: "Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections," Judge Stephanos Bibas — an appointee of President Donald Trump — wrote for the three-judge 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals panel composed entirely of GOP appointees. Bibas' opinion, delivered just after noon Friday, rejected the campaign's appeal of a district court ruling that similarly shredded the suit. But in an entirely different case brought in Pennsylvania state courts, the Trump team's victory was important. William A. Jacobson, clinical professor of law at Cornell University and proprietor of Legal Insurrection, explains: A Pennsylvania state court Judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College, pending further court hearings and rulings. The ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week, and is significant because of the findings made in the Opinion released tonight. (snip) The Judge found, among other things, that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had "certified" the results, because there were more steps to be taken (snip) This is not a final ruling on the merits. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|