I would think that a law professor who wrote this scenario for an exam would junk it because the problems are too obvious - all the students would get them all right and then how do you hand out the precious, precious, As?
Show this thread
The intro here distills the issue very well - Trump/Kraken's/Kelly's claims are beset by nearly every legal obstacle known to law. Bad facts, procedural problems, lack of a remedy, justiciability issues. It's like a law school exam - but one that is too easy.https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336340186339262464 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Non-lawyer here: Aren't "bad facts" either irrelevant facts or lies?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a hard exam if the question is "how do you rebut these arguments if you represent the plaintiff?"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As lawyers, they should be very clear about the procedures and requirements. This just shows that their real purpose is not legal proceedings, but the donations of Trump's millions of fans.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe it not just incompetence/fabricating a case without evidence--how could they fail this badly? Maybe it's to destabilize/propel an American population further away from truth, push a false narrative to delegitimize Biden or set the stage for Trump's illegal power grab.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I love a great preliminary statement. Well done here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why are filing lawyers not being sanctioned? Think of the time and money being wasted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Small request: if you make the pages bigger before you screenshot them, people with low vision can read them. E.g. this from Krebs Complaint against DeGenova et al.pic.twitter.com/bW2P5MAfIr
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1/ IMHO: They won’t review SCOPA bc tradnl doctrines of abstention & deference. They cd review whether voting procedures were consistent w Act 77 as written (bc “legislature” in II 1), but burden of factual showing is on Ps.
-
2/ Remedy is the big problem for Ps. What they wd need wd be at same time too broad (judicial invalidation of millions of mail-in votes) and too narrow (wdn’t affect election outcome).
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.