Election Fraud by the Democrats??

that is what we lawyers like to refer to as dicta. It is the same as if the court went blah blah blah, blah blah. It holds no legal precedent whatsoever. Further, like the other case, it would not be a decision on the merits. on the merits means that evidence was presented, typically through a trial. Sometimes evidence can be presented by way of summary judgment after discovery is conducted. Neither is the case here. There is a big difference between the court dismissing a claim on the pleadings, versus deciding it on the merits.

Once a court decides that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue, the Court’s jurisdiction ends. Standing is a jurisdictional requirement. Thus, it is legally impossible for a court to make a finding that a plaintiff does not have standing, then go on and decide a case on the merits.

 

I already responded to that. Read my previous post. That case was not decided on the merits. There’s not a fellow lawyer on this message board who will disagree with me on this.

 

so I’ll tell you what, I will donate a 100 to Biden’s campaign if you find a post here where I claim Trump won the election.

have you even bothered reading my posts in this thread, let alone any other thread regarding the 2020 election? Or are you just coming in here, late to the dance, and throwing out BS?

 

What with all the insults and tangents, I think folks have a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say. So what's your complaint again?

 

"Meritless on its face." Please explain how the court didn't rule on the merits but found a claim to be without merit "on its face." Your own argument is internally inconsistent.

 

You might not like that they did it, but they did it. As pointed out in the ruling. They ruled on the merits even if you wished that they hadn't. Sorry.

 

Quotes from the Trump v. Wisconsin Election Commission decision listed, BTW:

I am fascinated as to how Lawyer will try to dance around that particular one.

 

Even accepting your statement that you never claimed that Trump won the election your obsession with voter fraud certainly echoes the narrative of those Trump supporters who claim that he won or would have won the election were it not for massive (and mythical) voter fraud.

 

I don’t have a complaint, per se, I’m just making a comment on all of the people on this thread, who proclaim, as if fact, that there was no fraud in the last election; or that claim that the courts have made factual findings that there was no fraud. Both of those assertions are false. I don’t call that a complaint, I’m just pointing it out. All too often people come on these boards and spew out crap that they hear on Fox News or CNN, which just isn’t true. In summation , I would rather call my post an observation, not a complaint.

 

“on its face” means as alleged. It does not mean they reviewed any evidence. All you have to do is read the opinion. This trial court did not review a single shred of evidence. He ruled on the words in the complaint. The allegations themselves.

“on the merits” has a very specific legal meaning. It triggers, all types of different legal defenses and remedies down the road.

 

you are wrong

 

lol. I was bitching about voter fraud back in the days that the inventor of the Internet claimed he was president.

 

I want to add one more thing, which I stated earlier in this thread, I believe the apathy you and others have for voting fraud are the problem. I asked a very simple question in an earlier post, concerning what would you do if the poll watcher tore up your vote and threw it in the trashcan rather than stick it in the voting box. Nobody has answered that simple question.

I am passionate about voting rights because I come from a multigenerational military family, myself included. Relatives of mine have died defending our right to vote, amongst other things. I don’t take that civic responsibility lightly. Any voting fraud at all is unacceptable. When some idiot cast two votes, he very well may be canceling the vote of an army veteran, like my uncle, who stormed the beaches at D-Day. I will fight all day to protect his vote.

 

No, that is not what "on its face" means.

Regardless, here is the quote from the decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

Wholly without merit. Please explain why that phrase is not making a decision on merit.

 

You can’t quote anyone who said there was zero fraud. Shit the Pubs tried to cheat their ass off. There are about a dozen in jail.



Latest arrests in Rensselaer County voter fraud case ensnare top GOP figures

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...ted-in-alabama-on-felony-voter-fraud-charges/

What we know about the 16 fake electors charged in Michigan | CNN Politics

Yet Another Republican Commits Voter Fraud

Voter fraud at a GOP stronghold leads to another light sentence

 

look, you are wrong. You can come on here and post all the crap you want, but you’re not gonna be right. As to your second question, the answer is in the very first few words of what you posted.

“the campaign’s request to strike…” the word “request” here is in reference to the allegations in the complaint, in particular the prayer for relief. Nothing to do with evidence. The plaintiff can’t claim a statewide form is invalid, but only seek to throw out 2 counties. That is just stupid, and the court correctly pointed that out.

 

You really should read the case before you post. For example, the two counties being selected was not the issue in terms of merit. What was without merit was the blanket declaration that everybody in those counties was not eligible for declaring themselves indefinitely confined after their county had suggested that everybody should do that even though the court found that the counties couldn't blanket allow every person to do that.

So their claim was wholly without merit. A decision on the merit of the claim. Sorry. You can't out-argue reality, even if you really, really want to do so.

I also notice that you are avoiding the Trump v. Wisconsin Election Commission case. I can see why.

 

Voter fraud is bad. It happens, but did it happen on a scale that should have us worried? In a word, no.

The Heritage Foundation has a data base of "recent" voter fraud. I say recent in quotes because I see cases going all the back to the 1990s. May be some from even earlier, but I didn't check all states.

So, in 30 years or so, 1,465 cases. To put this in perspective, even if this represents only 1 in 6 caught, there still wouldn't be v enough fraud over 3 decades to flip a single state from the 2020 election!

Fraud happens, but on such a small scale, the odds of actually effecting the outcome of an election is infinitesimal small. And any election that close so that fraud might effect it would likely be more heavily scrutinized with recounts and/or audits that the fraud is highly likely to be discovered.

 

No one here is claiming there was no fraud in the 2020 election. People might fail to include the qualifiers 'massive' or 'systemic' at times, but we all know what they mean.

 

late to the dance?
late to the dance?
— Sez the poster ranting about 4-year old election results that have been counted, recounted, and audited. Physician heal thyself

If the poll watcher also tore up a fraudulent vote? I’m OK with that.