re: PT lawyers: how could courts just throw out cases without listening?

They can cite a lack of standing for the complaint or inability to resolve the issue.

quote:

---

Your analogies have zero correlation to what’s going on.

---

Let’s hear yours. And elaborate on the “brilliant” legal strategy that “all the best people” pursued here.

You can’t. Because it was a clown show. Don’t blame the fricking refs because your team sucked.

Wasn't much of the evidence simply not attainable legally and due to refusal(s) to cooperate by various officials?

The potato was too hot.

quote:

---

It’s confusing to a non lawyer how the courts wouldn’t even listen. Can someone explain better? Navarro report was pretty damning.

---

First, let's look at the Navarro report see the word "possible" at the bottom with the totals as evidence that is pretty far from damning.

When a plaintiff files a case they have to meet some basic requirements for the case to proceed. Most of the Trump allied cases have been thrown out on standing, laches and mootness issues. A case has to be brought by the correct person/entity at the correct time and the court must be in a position to redress the issue with their ruling. The majority of the cases failed to crack this nut.

The vast majority of the cases did not allege fraud. The three "Kraken" cases did and TX v PA had a sprinkling. The 3 Kraken suits were poorly drafted and the evidentiary proffers were sloppy, false on their 4 corners or unvetted. They gave the judges no reason to give the procedural issues the benefit of the doubt. The Texas case was just a Hail Mary that was doomed from the start.

I realize I haven't answered your question but also realize the core of the question is far beyond the scope of a forum post. I think most attorneys doing their best to don their impartial hat will see most of the cases, especially those post-election, were doomed. Pre-electon cases like Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar were timely and allowed to proceed but the votes in question has now rendered that suit moot. Post-election cases like Kelly vs PA were filed too late. Art 77 was passed over a year before the election and had a statutory 180 period to challenge it. Kelly tried to challenge it over 6 months late. Most of the non-fraud cases could have been brought prior to the election but people were sitting on their hands. People chose to challenge them after they got results they didn't like. Also make no mistake in thinking that election law changes were only made by the judicial and executive branches in swing states, the governor of TX extended early voting on his own for example. If you want to argue this it is going to have to be done prior to the election since no court is going to disenfranchise voters who voted within the rules given to them at the time of the election.

I apologize for the stream of consciousness and poor delivery, I have had to walk away and return to this post several times and I just don't have the fortitude to edit and assemble it into a better explanation.

quote:

---

It’s confusing to a non lawyer

---

no, not really

Courts like the Supreme Court have discretion nary review. They can pick and choose the cases they want. Have ti have a certain amount of votes to accept a case.

With lower courts, a suit can be filed but there have to be certain requirements met before a Court can hear a case. Courts have to have jurisdiction. A litigant has to have standing. There are numerous other defenses (exceptions, demurrers) than can be raised before a court even gets to the merits of a case.

Solid analogy