Why is Trump facing so many lawsuits after the US elections?

President Donald Trump vowed over every week in the past to unleash an imposing barrage of authorized challenges to the results of an election that’s. He may universally be acknowledged as, over and finished. In a statement final weekend, he vowed that, on Monday, November 7, “Our marketing campaign will begin prosecuting our case in court docket to make sure election legal guidelines are absolutely upheld and the rightful winner is seated.”

Nicely, final Monday has come and gone. Seems, all Trump’s attorneys have delivered is a ridiculous mishmash of lawsuits that run the gamut from weak to utterly meritless to downright frivolous. Trump and his attorneys are humiliating themselves, and so they’re damaging our democracy within the course of.

There is no delicate method to put this: Up to now, Trump, his marketing campaign and their surrogates have gotten completely pummeled within the courts. One of many nice issues about our authorized system is that it requires precise proof — not tweets, not public statements, not viral movies — however precise verifiable proof. And the Trump marketing campaign’s efforts to, effectively, trump up proof of voter fraud have failed spectacularly.

In a single case filed in Georgia, the Trump marketing campaign alleged that 53 ballots had been counted although that they had been solid after the deadline. However each of the Trump marketing campaign’s witnesses testified they didn’t really know when the ballots had been obtained, and two different witnesses confirmed that the ballots had been obtained on time. That case was shortly dismissed.

In one another case in Michigan, the marketing campaign of Trump claimed about the improper counting of sure late-arriving ballots. Their “proof” was a Republican election observer who claimed that an unnamed ballot employee confirmed her a Submit-it word of unknown provenance alleging improper poll counting. That is not the evidence, that is a rumour on top of rumour. That case was soon thrown out.

Final week, the Trump marketing campaign, in some way, managed to lose or voluntarily drop nine totally different circumstances at some point. Certainly, the Trump marketing campaign and its surrogates have even begun to drag again their very own lawsuits, giving up on their case in Arizona and dropping their attraction of a loss in Nevada. And, on Monday, voters in 4 states dropped their lawsuits searching for to contest election ends in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Even the attorneys are leaping ship; several companies have now deserted the Trump marketing campaign’s effort to dispute the election outcomes.

The Trump marketing campaign gained one minor case in Pennsylvania, and so they nonetheless may get fortunate and win one other right here or there among the many many they’ve scattered throughout the nation. However, even when they find yourself with several victories, it is going to doubtless be to no avail.

Given President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral Faculty margin of 306-232, even when Trump miraculously reversed the outcomes in, say, Pennsylvania (with its 20 electoral votes) and Georgia (16 electoral votes), Biden nonetheless wins.

Trump’s lawsuits to this point have not even come near proving (or in some circumstances haven’t even alleged) voter fraud on something close to that scale.

Judges to this point have gotten it proper. They’ve tossed out the preposterously infirm lawsuits almost as shortly as pro-Trump attorneys have filed them. Because of this, our judiciary has rightly prevented the bogus “huge fraud” narrative from taking any additional maintain than it already has gathered from the wild pronouncements of Trump and his enablers.

It is intriguing to have amusing on the dropping string of Trump marketing campaign lawsuits. However, these bringing these lawsuits deserve derision for his or her cussed, pathetic attempts to conjure massive fraud the place no such factor exists. Nonetheless, in addition, they are doing one thing extra insidious: They’re undermining public confidence in our election system and our democratic course of.

Tim (Delaware): May Republican state legislatures appoint their very own slates of presidential electors to vote for President Donald Trump, even when their states voted for Biden?

This would possibly not occur, for each authorized and political causes.

Legally, Structure’s Article II does grant state legislatures the facility to figure out the style of selecting presidential electors. 

Whereas state legislatures might change the style of appointing their electors, they would want to take action by (1) passing a brand new regulation, and (2) doing it earlier than the election for which the brand new rule would turn out to be efficient. As a matter of primary equity and as an authorized precept, it might be almost unimaginable for a state legislature to vary the foundations of appointment after the voters have solid their ballots in a given election.

As a political matter, it is vitally unlikely that state legislatures would even critically contemplate appointing a slate of electors, after the election, opposite to their states’ standard votes. No state legislature of both social gatherings has proven any severe inclination even to contemplate such a precipitous, politically self-destructive transfer. Do not lose sleep over this one.

Gordon (Texas): If the Senate finally ends up cut up 50-50, who controls the bulk and the agenda?

Republicans at the moment maintain a 50-48 benefit over Democrats for the upcoming Senate session, which can start in January 2021, with two Georgia runoffs pending. If Democrats win each these Georgia runoffs, the Senate might be cut up 50-50.

Article I of the Structure gives that the VP breaks a tie vote within the Senate: “The Vice President of america shall be President of the US Senate, however shall haven’t any vote, until they be equally divided.”

With Kamala Harris quickly to take work as Vice President, the Democrats would then maintain the tiebreaker benefit.

Tim (Texas): Are there any authorized necessities to turn out to be a justice on the Supreme Courtroom?

There aren’t any age, residency or nationality necessities to turn out to be a Supreme Courtroom justice, in contrast to many different of our highest public places of work. For instance, the US Structure requires that the president should be at the least 35 years previous, be a “pure born citizen” of America and have 14 years of residency within the nation. A US senator should be 30 years previous, with nine years of US citizenship and should reside within the state she or he represents. And a US consultant should be at the least 25 years previous, with seven years of citizenship and should reside within the state she or he represents.

The Structure doesn’t even specify {that a} Supreme Courtroom justice should be a lawyer. Two justices who served within the 1940s and 1950s, James Byrnes and Robert Jackson, studied regulation however didn’t maintain formal regulation levels (although Jackson was awarded a level the identical 12 months he was confirmed to the court docket).

Leave a Comment