[12月09號]美國大選新聞總匯

兒子生性 2020-12-09 16:18:28

連登清泉

本機磁碟 2020-12-09 16:23:40

命運在冷笑 2020-12-09 16:26:17

樓主唔上熱門無天理

吉邨春袋子 2020-12-09 16:26:35

TEXAS EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE LAWSUIT IS GETTING BIGGER: #Missouri, #Kentucky, #Louisiana, #Mississippi, #SouthCarolina, #SouthDakota, #Texas, #Alabama, #Arkansas and #Florida have just signed on against #Georgia, #Michigan, #Pennsylvania and #Wisconsin!
#EqualProtectionMatters
https://twitter.com/JCremeans
岩岩睇到加左田納西洲

底已被起 2020-12-09 16:27:57

應該係流料
我懷疑係由下面份嘢度cut出嚟 (最後2頁)

https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2020-11-09---republican-party-of-pa-v-boockvar---amicus-brief-of-missouri-et-al---final-with-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=e8b821a6_2.

Bastet 2020-12-09 16:29:01

求電鋸表情....XD

24人共用帳戶 2020-12-09 16:29:30

呢一個單嘢有另一單wo
唔係洲打洲，仲有11月9日

自從看了太宰治 2020-12-09 16:30:28

但我記得個官係話應該去state court
如果嗰個本身係state court佢點解叫人去state court

自從看了太宰治 2020-12-09 16:32:27

份野似流因為冇理由德州擺喺additional counsel 佢係主要提告嗰個

Easy 2020-12-09 16:34:08

Mike Kelly單官司可以貼埋點解佢會被Denied

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162968/20201208090425848_20A98%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20efile.pdf
自己睇下法官點寫唔算太難明

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioners ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive
invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued
an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for
good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election
results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in
our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power
would be incalculable.” Order, Wis. Voters All. v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, No.
2020AP1930-OA, at 3 (Wis. Dec. 4, 2020) (Hagedorn, J., concurring).
In seeking such unprecedented relief, Petitioners might be expected to present
claims of the utmost constitutional gravity. Instead, the pair of claims they advance
are fundamentally frivolous. Neither claim was pressed or passed upon below.
Neither claim implicates a circuit split. Both claims are mired in procedural and
jurisdictional defects that preclude this Court’s review. The first question—which
seeks to raise Elections and Electors Clause challenges to Act 77—is not actually
presented by this case. And the second question—which argues that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in its application of
laches—asks this Court to constitutionalize huge swaths of state procedural law
without any credible basis in constitutional principles or this Court’s precedents.
Even if Petitioners could surmount these obstacles, they would still need to
justify the relief they seek. This first-of-its-kind injunction raises major constitutional
questions. Yet Petitioners address none of them. They do not explain how a remedy
2
premised on massive disenfranchisement would accord with the Due Process Clause,
which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election
rules as implemented and described by state officials. Nor do they seek to square their
position with the separation of powers, the Twelfth Amendment, or basic principles
of federalism—all of which foreclose the injunctive relief that Petitioners seek here.
These failings also explain why equity stands as an insuperable obstacle to
Petitioners’ application. “Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly
and finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof. The public must have
confidence that our Government honors and respects their votes.” Donald J. Trump
for President, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, No. 20-3371, 2020 WL 7012522, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov.
27, 2020). But Petitioners would throw all that to the wind. After waiting over a year
to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they
come to this Court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state.
They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval,
turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash. In issuing equitable relief, this Court rightly
seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder. So to say that the public interest militates
against Petitioners would be a grave understatement. Their suit is nothing less than
an affront to constitutional democracy. It should meet a swift and decisive end.