Highlights Safe Harbor Day highlight Trump’s electoral lawsuits – and the success of the judiciary

0
11

Happy safe harbor day, everyone! Do not remember this day as a child? Okay, desperate times call for desperate measures, and that means marking federal election deadlines that went unnoticed.

Under federal law, the safe harbor is the deadline by which states must resolve all of their electoral college disputes and finalize their presidential election results. If states certify their results by the deadline, which is six days before the Electoral College meets and votes, Congress should accept the presidential election results of those states.

Do not remember this day as a child? Okay, desperate times call for desperate measures, and that means marking federal election deadlines that went unnoticed.

This means that we are closer to the finish line. Like it or not, President-Elect Joe Biden will soon become President Biden and there is no legal challenge or political pressure strategy that will replace it. Electoral college members officially vote on December 15. Biden would easily obtain the 270 votes needed to become the 46th President of the United States.

When President Donald Trump and his legal team have cried “fraud” for months, why can I be so confident about it? Because the judiciary has done its job. Trump’s post-election litigation strategy had failed and will continue as the judiciary has taken hold. State court judges and federal judges, Republican judges and Democratic judges have almost, without exception, dismissed or dismissed baseless lawsuits filed by the Trump legal team and its allies. This has been a good post-election period for Trump and a good month for the rule of law. According to prominent Democratic lawyer Mark Elias, Trump and his allies have Won one election after another, they have lost 49.

One good thing about the pre-election election was that Trump could potentially break the will of voters and win the presidency through the court system. These apprehensions were sparked by the fact that Trump and the GOP-led Senate were so skilled at naming federal judges. Trump has appointed one-third of the Supreme Court and about one-quarter of the entire federal bench. And the president made no secret of the fact that Justice Amy Connie Barrett’s confirmation of confirmation was based on his desire to consolidate a 6-3 majority of conservatives for post-election litigation.

No thanks to Trump, trust in the Supreme Court has been particularly divided, with liberals having far less potential than conservatives for favorable opinions of the court. But judges are ultimately not politicians. A conservative legal decision does not always lead to a Republican political victory. One only needs the tenure of last year’s Supreme Court. In one case, Trump appointing Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion that federal employment law protects people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In another, Chief Justice John Roberts, a President George W. Bush, appointed, wrote an opinion that prevented the Trump administration from ending the adjournment for Childhood Action (DACA).

Do judges sometimes act like politicians? Sure. But judges have a different job than politicians. They apply the facts of each case to the applicable law. Sometimes, the answer is obvious. Sometimes, a good deal of discretion and interpretation is required to arrive at a decision.

And when it came to post-election cases by the Trump Legal Team, little judicial discretion or interpretation was required. Again, Trump and his allies have lost essentially all of the post-election lawsuits that have already been decided. These are not close calls.

Most of the allegations focus on unproven and unfounded allegations of voter fraud by Trump and his allies. Of these, the allegations made in court filings were often more limited than Trump’s rhetoric, focusing on things such as election observers having meaningful access to the counting of votes.

Trump and his allies have essentially lost all of the post-election lawsuits that have already been decided. These are not close calls.

In Pennsylvania, it was one of Trump’s appointments, Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephanos Bibas, who wrote a majority opinion while rigging Trump’s last remaining legal case in that state. Bibas’s opinion was joined by two Republican appointees. Bibas wrote, “Calling an election unfair does not happen. The charges require specific charges and then evidence. We have neither here. “It is the judicial equivalent of an intestate punch.

Similarly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously declined the request to trash approximately 2.5 million mail-in ballots. The lawsuit – brought by Rep. Mike Kelly – one of Trump’s biggest supporters in Congress – was an attempt to overturn legislation passed in Pennsylvania last year with no-excusable mail voting. The court dismissed the case, based on the doctrine of prohibition, finding that the challengers waited too long to claim how the election was going.

The Trump legal team told us that they have several successful legal claims in Pennsylvania. In the end, they did not.

And the losses of the Trump legal team do not end with Pennsylvania. Three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Trump appointed two, Unanimously dismissed a lawsuit preventing certification of Georgia’s election results. Another 11th Circuit panel denied an appeal by Sidney Powell, a former member of Trump’s legal team. The judges concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to rule on the claim. Trump-appointed Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a majority opinion.

Of course, it is troubling that these decisions were not necessarily reassuring. The concern before the election is that the judiciary will not be completely irrational. Thankfully, our worst fears were not realized, at least around this time. The judges did what they were supposed to do.

The judiciary may not always act as a railing on all and all issues, but it did on Trump’s post-election litigation. Learning from Trump’s many mistakes, the next sore loser candidate, in other words, can be more effective. It will try to stand up to the judges of all partisan stripes and protect our rules and democratic processes. Defense of democracy is a continuous process.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here