- President-elect addresses jobs report
- San Francisco Bay Area counties to go under stay-at-home order
- Judge orders Trump administration to fully restore Daca
- Judge dismisses Trump bids to contest Nevada and Georgia votes
- US sees 217,664 new cases and 2,879 deaths – both new highs
- US jobs market recovery slows amid Covid surge
- Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
Here comes another one. For the Trump legal team, the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court to deny a petition from a conservative group asking the panel to invalidate the presidential election is loss no. 45, according to a tally by the Democracy Docket.
BREAKING: Wisconsin Supreme Court DENIES application by conservative group to invalidate results of the election.
Trump and his allies have now lost 45 post election cases and won 1.t.co/xVhV7iMW3t
Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share a further observation. Something far more fundamental than the winner of Wisconsin’s electoral votes is implicated in this case. At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic. It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering. The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.
I do not mean to suggest this court should look the other way no matter what. But if there is a sufficient basis to invalidate an election, it must be established with evidence and arguments commensurate with the scale of the claims and the relief sought. These petitioners have come nowhere close. While the rough and tumble world of electoral politics may be the prism through which many view this litigation, it cannot be so for us. In these hallowed halls, the law must rule.
Donald Trump notched his 44th loss in post-election litigation on Friday when a district judge dismissed both an attempt by his campaign to contest the election results in Nevada and another in Georgia, according to a count by Democracy Docket.
BREAKING: 11th Circuit DISMISSES Georgia Kraken appeal.
Trump and his allies remain 1-44 in post-election litigation.t.co/QjoooN47HA
BREAKING: Nevada court DISMISSES with prejudice Trump Election Contest!
Trump and his allies are now 1-44 in post election litigation.t.co/MSGolxNx6u
In our judicial system, the district court is the central forum for testing, advancing, proving, or disproving a party’s allegations. It is where trials take place and the parties present their evidence. As a court of appeals, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” Typically, we enter the picture only after the district court has considered the parties’ competing positions and a winner has emerged. Less frequently, we review preliminary injunctions or orders that ask a particularly important, purely legal question.
The district court has not issued one of those appealable orders. In this case, the district court issued an emergency temporary restraining order at the plaintiffs’ request, worked at a breakneck pace to provide them an opportunity for broader relief, and was ready to enter an appealable order on the merits of their claims immediately after its expedited hearing on December 4, 2020. But the plaintiffs would not take the district court’s “yes” for an answer. They appealed instead. And, because they appealed, the evidentiary hearing has been stayed and the case considerably delayed. For our part, the law requires that we dismiss the appeal and return the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Read the original article at The Guardian