- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump's court cases: have they had chance to present their evidence in a complete fashion?
Posted on 1/23/21 at 4:11 pm to HailToTheChiz
Posted on 1/23/21 at 4:11 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
They probably never envisioned multiple state legislatures changing procedure and that the supreme court would refuse to hear it at all
The courts never allowed any case to come to trial because everything they came with was just feelings and not facts! Judges really don't give a shite about how you FEEL! If you have evidence that suggests widespread fraud they would allow it. If you come with "feelings" and "he said, she said" they're like GTFO. Even Trump appointed judges. I don't know why thats so hard to understand???
Posted on 1/23/21 at 4:31 pm to Number1Gump
Evidence necessary to meet the standard to defeat an initial motion to dismiss is intentionally set rather "light". 9 times out of 10 affadavit(s) are plenty good enough to meet the plaintiff's burden at that preliminary stage. Typically the plaintiff meets the light burden which in turn leads to the all-important discovery stage. It's a rare thing for a plaintiff to have the bulk of his evidence bagged and ready to go prior to discovery processes. In fact, more often than not the plaintiff secures his best evidence during that subsequent discovery stage.
Long story short, the judges held the plaintiffs in these matters to a cartoonish stringent standard for an initial motion to dismiss, the intentions being to derail the cases before plaintiffs could have secured much, much better evidence, as it typically goes. It was all an embarrassing and disgusting show of jurisprudential service.
Long story short, the judges held the plaintiffs in these matters to a cartoonish stringent standard for an initial motion to dismiss, the intentions being to derail the cases before plaintiffs could have secured much, much better evidence, as it typically goes. It was all an embarrassing and disgusting show of jurisprudential service.
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 4:33 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News