Oral Argument on Motions to Dismiss in Pennsylvania Case Was an Opportunity Lost -- Strategic Vision Was Needed
By Shipwreckedcrew | Nov 18, 2020 10:00 AM ET
First, a disclaimer: I did not listen to the argument as it took place, and I do not think a transcript has been published yet. So I do not know the actual content on the hearing, only what was reported in a couple of “live blog†efforts, both of which were anti-Trump partisans so I didn’t expect them to have anything favorable to say about the presentation on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the case.
But I was worried when I saw that Rudy Giuliani had sought to make an appearance in the case, and I feared he would take it upon himself to try and argue these technical issues of law that were the basis for the motions to dismiss — a lack of “standing†to make a Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection†claim, and an assertion that the court should observe the “abstention doctrine†and wait for state courts to resolve disputed issues of state laws in the case.
Based on the reporting, which I have no reason to disbelieve, my fears were realized as Rudy’s presentation — as described — might have fit in on a segment of Hannity or Laura Ingraham, but it was completely inappropriate and lacking in making the argument that the case as pled should survive and the plaintiffs be allowed to pursue discovery.
The problem is that as the complaint is drafted, there are “standing†issues based on prior decisions in election cases in the Third Circuit — and there would be similar problems in just about every other circuit as well. Generally speaking, voters who voted for the losing candidate in an election do not have “standing†to ask the Court to throw out the results. Two of the plaintiffs here are voters — but they didn’t vote in any of the seven counties that are defendants.
more
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/18/oral-argument-on-motions-to-dismiss-in-pennsylvania-case-was-an-opportunity-lost-strategic-vision-needed-n281500
