Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ World https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Sommelier compares 11 wines from Costco, Target, Trader Joe’s and BJ’s – and the winner is clear

Sommelier compares 11 wines from Costco, Target, Trader Joe’s and BJ’s – and the winner is clear



National Review

The judge found the fatal defect in the Pennsylvania case of Trump’s campaign

A federal court rejected the case of Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania, which challenged the victory of alleged President-elect Joe Biden in the community. Thus, District Judge Matthew Bran refused the campaign’s eleventh attempt to file a new complaint that would have restored the election fraud that Trump̵

7;s campaign had abandoned a few days earlier. (I described the case here and explained Trump’s latest campaign effort to amend it here.) Judge Bran’s 37-page opinion sets out various reasons for closing the case. Most of them addressed the complaints of two separate plaintiffs, voters who claimed that their ballots had been incorrectly reduced. In contrast, the court found that Trump’s campaign had no right to sue because it did not provide evidence that President Trump was harmed in any known way by the way the Pennsylvania election was conducted. At the bottom, however, the court found that the fatal flaw in the case was one that we had repeatedly emphasized: The discrepancy between the alleged damage and the remedy sought. As the judge explained, even if one accepts the dubious premise that the two voters in question were wrongly denied the right to vote, while others who are similarly located are not, the commensurate relief will be the counting of their votes. Instead, backed by Trump’s campaign, the two voters filed a petition in court to prevent Pennsylvania from verifying – on Monday, as required by state law – the Community election result, which Biden won with 83,000 votes. Bran counters:> The ban on certifying the election results will not restore the right to vote of individual plaintiffs. That would deny more than 6.8 million [Pennsylvanians] their right to vote. “Standing is measured on the basis of the theory of injury and the specific relief sought.” It is not “grossly distributed: the plaintiff’s legal remedy must be tailored to compensate for the applicant’s specific harm.” Here, the answer to the invalidated ballots is not to invalidate millions more. [Footnotes omitted.]As we told in detail on Friday, the case was in a strange position. In its initial complaint on November 9, Trump’s campaign claimed large-scale vote fraud, relying mainly on allegations that Republican observers were denied a significant opportunity to observe ballot campaigning. But, as Bran notes (and we discussed here), on November 13, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Round (which is binding on Bran County Court) issued its opinion in the Bognet case against the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Community. Although not directly related to the campaign case, Bognet’s motives significantly undermine its allegations. The campaign responded by amending its complaint, reducing the case to the close assertion that Trump’s voters’ rights to equal protection (and, consequently, campaign rights) ) were violated by an alleged distorted procedure: Voters in the mail in Biden-friendly counties were allowed to heal defects in the ballots they submitted, while voters in Trump-friendly counties were not. Bran dismissed the claim, accepting Pennsylvania’s argument that Secretary of State Katie Bukvar had encouraged the treatment of ballots across the country. Thus, the state government is not to blame if not all counties have taken advantage of this opportunity. However, this is largely out of the question. Even if there has been a violation of voters’ rights, the means of protection will be the counting of their votes. Instead, as the court noted, the plaintiffs seek to remove the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Instead of asking for their votes to be counted, they seek to discredit dozens of other votes, but only for one race. [i.e., the presidential race, not the other contests down-ballot]. The constitution simply does not work that way. [Emphasis added.]Moreover:> Providing the relief requested to the plaintiffs would necessarily require the invalidation of the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. As this court does not have the power to deprive the right to vote of even one person, and with it millions of citizens, it cannot provide the requested relief to the plaintiffs. Bran concluded that Trump’s campaign had no reason to sue, based, derivative, on the harm alleged by both voters, especially after Bognet’s decision. He specifically rejected both of the main complaints of the campaign for equal protection: (1) that polling observers were discriminatory excluded from canvas observation, and (2) that voters’ ability to cure defective ballots was deliberately made in counties known to the state. of Biden. According to the first, Bran believes that this is not, as Trump’s campaign claims, a matter of equal protection. The campaign does not claim that Trump’s observers were treated differently from Biden’s observers. Regarding the latter, Bran concluded that the campaign misinterpreted Bush v. Gore, and in any case did not claim that Bukvar’s instructions for curing ballots differed across counties. Most importantly, Bran denied the dilapidated attempt by Trump’s campaign to amend the complaint once again late last week to recover claims from their original complaint, which they withdrew last weekend. The court argued that this would “unduly delay the resolution of the problems” in light of the fact that Monday, November 23, is the deadline for Pennsylvania counties to certify their election results to the state government – a necessary prelude to the appointment of the voter list. voted in the Electoral College of the General Assembly. In response to the ruling, Trump’s lawyers issued a statement saying that while they disagreed with the decision of the “Obama-appointed judge,” it was in fact a boon to our strategy to get to the U.S. Supreme Court expeditiously. “It is true that Bran was appointed by former President Barack Obama, but he is a member of the Republican and Federalist Society, sponsored by Republican Sen. Pat Toomi – a common situation where the two state senators are from different parties and the administration has to to trade horses by appointment. Trump’s lawyers added that their decision denied “the opportunity to present our evidence in a ring.” They described this as “censorship” of “50 witnesses” who would testify that government officials denied the “independent review” required. This is an obvious reference to the campaign’s claim that poll observers were not given a significant opportunity to observe the lane, which lawyers said “led to the illegal voting of 682,777 ballots.” The campaign did not mention that it refused to do so. Nor did it hint at Bran’s conclusion that the allegation was not a recognizable claim for equal protection under federal law. The campaign said it would seek an expedited appeal to Third Chain, the tribunal that just decided the Bognet case. the precedent that seems to have prompted the campaign to withdraw the claims it is now seeking to revive.In any case, it is anything but clear that The Court of Justice, which has so far refused to act on Pennsylvania lawsuits related to the 2020 elections, will agree to consider the campaign case – even if it finds that the Third Chain has lodged an expedited appeal and, as even the campaign clearly expects, makes rules against the campaign.


Source link