The PA Supreme Court does seem more partisan lately. That said, they are using fig leaves to cover themselves and I think it's important to know what, exactly, they're doing.
Especially when I don't think what they're doing really holds up to scrutiny.
That's a rather tortured reading.
That's right. I was just explaining the opposition arguments because they were the new ones. The 3rd Circuit case has the potential to undo PA's award of electoral votes while the earlier one, that Alito issued a stay on, likely cannot.
You don't need to motion to appeal, so that's a plus for the Trump Campaign. All they need to do now is ask SCOTUS for permission to appeal. Quick overview:
Courts generally have three levels. Trial Level (also called district court for the Feds), appellate level (circuit courts for the Feds) and Supreme Court (the top).
When you file a lawsuit, you start in the trial level. This is the only level where you can present witnesses and testimony.
If either side thinks the trial level made a mistake, you have a right to appeal to the appellate level (circuit courts). The appellate level cannot hear new evidence, but they can review the record made at the trial level.
If either side thinks the appellate level made a mistake, they can ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. Bar some very limited circumstances (that do not include any of our cases in this election) you do not have a right to be heard by SCOTUS. SCOTUS does a secret, internal vote on each petition asking for their help. If 4 SCOTUS justices agree to hear your case, then it gets heard.
Alito's assignment means he'll handle administrative/procedural issues that come up and can refer a case to the other justices to initiate this secret vote for a full hearing.
I'm working on a third update and I'll try to include some of this!
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania basically decided a case using the same catch-22 logic you're describing here just after this. So yeah, you can't challenge it beforehand because there's no harm and you can't challenge it after because you're not actually harmed.
The undercurrent of the decisions is the simple idea that having fraud occur in your election, whether you be a voter or a political party, doesn't really hurt you or hurts you in such a small, narrow window that it's 'blink and you'll miss it'.
Thank you!
I'm writing another update now. There's been a lot more action so I'll try to make use of the advice.
If court cases are not set after 12/8, it's up to each state. They could decide to not send electors if litigation is pending or they could send them anyway. Trump's Campaign can also ask courts for emergency injunctions barring the sending of electors.
The electoral college can meet without electors from all states, but it doesn't reduce the 270 threshold I believe. It just makes it harder for a candidate to reach it (because some electors aren't there). If enough electors aren't there that for anyone to reach 270, it goes to the House.
So I hit the post limit on that. I'll have to make a condensed recap for part 3 and ongoing.
Not likely. Mail should be screened by the secretary, who may complain if he/she receives a large volume but that's probably it. Judges are not supposed to consider correspondence/information about a case except that which is presented in a courtroom and are not supposed to allow themselves to be swayed by third parties.
Doctrine of res judicata. You can't relitigate the same factual issues again after a decision was made. The stuff they would want to bring up was already part of the factual issue of this case. They could certainly try to file again and see if they could get around it by arguing that while both concern the election they are factually different, but I would not give them good odds on it working.
The only thing I can think of besides more and better lawyers would be mass public protest outside the Third Circuit Courthouse and that's a maybe.
No, I'm not saying that. Kerns wasn't supposed to be handling this solo (see the first analysis I linked at the top). Porter Wright (a massive firm) was supposed to be assisting her. They withdrew because they got attacked by the left. Kerns then screwed up handling something monumental for a firm her size (basically a solo as far as I can tell).
Note that it isn't my speculation she accidentally deleted it all though. Both Kerns and Giuliani asserted this position as did the current law firm handling the case: Scaringi.