Shouldn't all these jackass lawyers be disbarred by now? At what point does it become illegal to file so many ridiculous and insane lawsuits with no merit and no basis in fact or reality?
These poor judges. I picture them looking at their docket every morning and saying to themselves, "Jesus christ, another one of these f***wits? Alright, let's get this over with."
At least they know it'll be easy. I suppose the Trump campaign is dumb enough to think all they need is 1 judgement from an "owned" judge and it'll be sufficient to muddy the waters outside the base. Their mistake is in thinking a judicial appointment has personal loyalty to a dips--t like Trump.
You can see that when he talks about expecting the Supreme Court to rule in his favor if he can just get a case there. Day drinking Brett and Christian snake charming Barbie are now set for life - they may have idiotic conservative ideologies, but they're not going to help out that stooge.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
The Following User Says Thank You to Flashpoint For This Useful Post:
President Donald Trump on Wednesday vowed to intervene in a long-shot lawsuit by the State of Texas filed at the U.S. Supreme Court trying to throw out the voting results in four states he lost to President-elect Joe Biden as he seeks to undo the outcome of the election.
The Republican president, writing on Twitter, said: “We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”
...
Trump provided no details on the nature of the intervention in the case that he was promising, including whether it would be his presidential campaign or the U.S. Justice Department that would take action.
Officials from the four states at issue have called the lawsuit a reckless attack on democracy while legal experts gave it little chance to succeed. It was filed directly with the Supreme Court rather than with a lower court, as is permitted for certain litigation between states.
How in the world is it okay for the U.S. Justice Department to act on behalf of the president? Is there no separation of state and a president’s personal interest?
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
How in the world is it okay for the U.S. Justice Department to act on behalf of the president? Is there no separation of state and a president’s personal interest?
It's actually pretty astonishing how much absolute power a president can have if he/she has the audacity to try, and the people lack the will to oppose.
So much trust is put on things like oaths, sacred duty to office, and a 240 year old piece of parchment. The whole system is built on faith more than tangible checks and balances.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
How in the world is it okay for the U.S. Justice Department to act on behalf of the president? Is there no separation of state and a president’s personal interest?
Current AG Bill Barr has said flat out that they have not seen any evidence of voter fraud, certainly not any that would have an impact on the outcome of the election.
So it's unlike the US DoJ would do his bidding in this case unless (as has been speculated) Barr leaves before January 20th and Trump replaces him with an interim AG willing to do his dirty work.
president donald trump asked the supreme court on wednesday to block millions of votes from four battleground states that voted for president-elect joe biden.
Trump's request came in a filing with the court asking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by texas attorney general ken paxton seeking to invalidate millions of votes cast in four states that went for biden: Georgia, michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin.
The president is being represented by a new attorney, john eastman, who is known for recently pushing a racist conspiracy theory that claimed vice president-elect kamala harris was not eligible for the role because her parents were immigrants.
U.S. President Donald Trump and 17 states on Wednesday threw their support behind a long-shot lawsuit by Texas seeking to overturn his election loss by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the voting results in four states.
...
In addition to Missouri, the states joining Texas were: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. All of the states were represented by Republican officials in the filing. All but three of the states have Republican governors.
...
The New York Times, quoting an unnamed source familiar with the discussion, reported that Trump has asked Republican U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas to argue the case if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.
...
Trump’s filing with the court said the four states “conducted the elections according to unauthorized rules,” adding that it was “not necessary for the Plaintiff in Intervention (Trump) to prove that fraud occurred” to have the election results thrown out.
Trump brought his motion in his personal capacity, rather than through the U.S. Justice Department or his campaign.
I'm betting this Texas case will get tossed right out of court the same way the most recent Pennsylvania decision came down. The SC will simply refuse to hear the case.
Speaking of which, Supreme Leader Dips*** lost another one yesterday, this time in Nevada:
The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday night to reject an appeal from President Trump’s campaign to overturn the state’s election results, the latest loss in the president’s ongoing legal efforts to have states he did not win declare him victorious.
The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Trump attorneys must face disciplinary action
Quote:
“Lawyers are gatekeepers to filter out what gets presented to a court to ensure that the filings are not garbage,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor and expert on ethical rules governing lawyers and judges. “If bad claims come to courts, there is less time for other things, and so judges should — and I would hope they would — get appropriately incensed if Trump’s lawyers or any lawyers force them to spend time on rejected claims that never should have been filed in the first place.”
Quote:
More than 1,500 lawyers — including law professors, retired judges, and former heads of bar associations — issued a public letter calling the actions of Giuliani and the other attorneys pushing these baseless claims “a disgrace.” The signees urged disciplinary bodies to investigate their actions, and bar associations to publicly condemn them.
“Giuliani’s aim is obvious: to fuel Mr. Trump’s campaign to delegitimize the outcome of the election,” the lawyers wrote in the letter, organized by the group Lawyers Defending American Democracy. “Attorneys take an oath to support the Constitution. Lawyers who lie to advance the partisan interest of a politician or any client dishonor the constitutional system they’ve sworn to uphold, the legal profession, and themselves.”
Quote:
n addition, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows courts to impose disciplinary sanctions against attorneys who file federal claims that are not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument” or without “evidentiary support.” Most state courts have similar provisions, and sanctions range from striking the offending pleadings to imposing monetary sanctions.
And though judges cannot issue disbarment orders on their own, court-ordered sanctions can provide a basis for state disciplinary boards to take action that could include suspension, censure, or disbarment, Gillers said.
Quote:
It’s not as if judges don’t see these cases as the cynical PR stunts that they are. Another federal judge, ruling against Trump in a different case this week, wrote that the “lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek . . . and more about the impact of their allegations on People’s faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government.” But they’ve held back from any more formal reprimand.
With Rule 11 sanctions at their disposal, federal judges have the most power to act, and they should exercise it — setting the example for state judges to follow suit, and empowering attorney disciplinary authorities to launch their own probes to hold these lawyers accountable for the damage they have caused.
All four defendant states have filed their responses. All are incredibly well-written complete rebuttals of the Texas case on grounds, merits, constitutional law and for standing. They make the original claims by Texas look like the clown car show of bad reasoning that they are.
All four defendant states have filed their responses. All are incredibly well-written complete rebuttals of the Texas case on grounds, merits, constitutional law and for standing. They make the original claims by Texas look like the clown car show of bad reasoning that they are.
