The first step in any trial (if you're the plaintiff) is convincing the court that there's a legal wrong to be tried in the first place. The first line for any defense is "no, there isn't." Most of us believe this judge, as an Obama appointee, will agree with the defense, at which point Rudy and team will appeal. Lawyerpedes correct me, if I'm retarded.
In short, they are saying the plaintiff is not presenting a case that belongs in the court. It’s a b.s. argument, but a typical go-to for the defendant in a preliminary hearing as an attempt to dismiss. You have to argue something.
If a plaintiff can get ruled as not having standing, it's an easy-out to dismiss the suit without a trial. An appeal would have to then show how there was legal standing but the lower court ignored it, or misinterpreted the law.
My understanding is that defense is arguing that Trump's team goofed and the fraud argument isn't worth having because it's obvious by looking at the law.
Right now basically Rudy argued the fraud part.
The state is only arguing that Trump lacks standing in the case.
That’s a legit argument. And the first hurdle you need to overcome in any case. So.....
How could Trump NOT have standing in the case....that makes no sense.
Lawyers will always use this as a step 1. EXCUSE ME YOUR HONOR THE PROSECUTOR LACKS STANDING
if you ever did small claims or a suit, lawyers have a preset list of did you try turning your laptop off and restart? Sort of list
How is ... The guy running in the election, not the one with standing? How is it a legit argument to make?
The first step in any trial (if you're the plaintiff) is convincing the court that there's a legal wrong to be tried in the first place. The first line for any defense is "no, there isn't." Most of us believe this judge, as an Obama appointee, will agree with the defense, at which point Rudy and team will appeal. Lawyerpedes correct me, if I'm retarded.
That doesn't mean it's a good argument.
Lacks standing? This is the most harm done to a political candidate in history.
Thats it? Standing is all they have to argue?
Standing here is a weak sauce argument.
The judge is biased.
But the district and circuit courts are speed bumps on this road.
The job here is not to get the ruling, but to make the record.
What does that mean?
In short, they are saying the plaintiff is not presenting a case that belongs in the court. It’s a b.s. argument, but a typical go-to for the defendant in a preliminary hearing as an attempt to dismiss. You have to argue something.
For some reason I'm imagining Ozzy Man just saying "Yeah, Nah m8, I don't like it."
Judge:"What?"
OM: "The argument. I don't like it"
If a plaintiff can get ruled as not having standing, it's an easy-out to dismiss the suit without a trial. An appeal would have to then show how there was legal standing but the lower court ignored it, or misinterpreted the law.
My understanding is that defense is arguing that Trump's team goofed and the fraud argument isn't worth having because it's obvious by looking at the law.
Care to elaborate? Not saying you're wrong, just admitting my ignorance.