Mike Sacks Profile picture
Nov 19, 2020 18 tweets 3 min read Read on X
Hearing is still going on, but I have to go on air now. So go to @KlasfeldReports for more updates
Just deleted a tweet saying Judge Grimberg said the case was a closer call than the Dem Party argued and wanted to decide on the briefs. Judge was talking about Dems’ motion to intervene, not about merits of case or plaintiffs’ standing.

SORRY FOR THE HEART ATTACKS.
NOTE TO SELF: Don't livetweet reports from high-profile hearings I'm half-listening to while writing my on-air intro.

Judge taking a 10 minute recess, but he's dropping lots of hints he's not on board with the plantiffs here.
JUDGE: Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.
Judge Grimberg, a Trump appointee, says pro-Trump plaintiff lacks standing to ask the court to block GA's certification of the state's count for Biden.
JUDGE: "Neither the Republican Party nor the Trump Campaign nor any other candidate has joined this lawsuit. That certainly would have changed the analysis when it comes to standing."
Judge on pro-Trump plaintiff's attempt to block signature match settlement agreement: "I didn't hear any justification for why the plaintiff delayed bringing this claim until 2 weeks after the election and on the cusp of this election being certified."
Judge Grimberg: "It seems to me the plaintiff fails to state a claim" to survive a motion to dismiss.
Judge: "There is no constitutional right in monitoring an election. It's not a life, it's not a liberty, and it's not a property. And for that reason, the procedural due process claim fails."
Judge: "Garden variety election disputes, including disputes surrounding the counting and marking of ballots does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation."
Judge: "There is no evidence that this [plaintiff] will suffer any harm or irreparable harm by denying this motion."
Judge: "The relief that the plaintiff is seeking here is quite striking...it would require halting the certification of results in a state election in which millions of people have voted, it would interfere with an election after the voting was done..."
Judge: "It harms the public interest in countless ways, particularly in the environment in which this election occurred....To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and potentially disenfranchisement that I find has no basis in fact or in law."
And with that, hearing's over and case is dismissed.
If they want to appeal this to the 11th Circuit, they’ll have to move fast because GA’s certification is tomorrow
...which means perhaps we could get our first hint of what all 9 SCOTUS justices think of these post-election cases before tomorrow is over, too.

Or the plaintiffs here could just give up and let the Trump Campaign file its own suit in GA tomorrow as Rudy promised today.
I’m probably late to this but here’s Judge Grimberg’s written order throwing the Georgia case out courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Sacks

Mike Sacks Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MikeSacksEsq

Jul 1
The decision feels like Bruen in that it'll have the justices in subsequent cases going WAIT NO WE DIDN'T MEAN THAT except it'll be after Emperor Trump orders Kavanaugh to chew off Roberts's face in the supersized Thunderdome constructed on top of the Supreme Court building
Hahahaha what am I saying this opinion will never be cited again if dude returns to office because they'll just Weekend at Bentham him so that he'll remain immune from whatever crimes he commits while alive or dead during his eternal reign Image
If dude loses then yeah so long as this SCOTUS is similarly constituted a majority will permit any subsequent Republican DOJ to swiftly execute any past Democratic President for the nonofficial criminal acts of Winning an Election and Democrating While In Office.

Per KBJ: Image
Read 5 tweets
Jun 14
SCOTUS 6-3 invalidates the federal bump stock ban supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Thomas writes for the six-justice Republican supermajority saying existing law didn't authorize the Trump admin's rule.

Alito, concurring, says Congress should amend the law.

HEY CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS ALITO SAYS PASS A GUN CONTROL LAW BANNING BUMP STOCKS!
Image
Image
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissents, saying that bump stock-equipped guns clearly fall within Congress's prohibition on machine guns:

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."
Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Jun 8
FedSoc’s founder comes out as a 2020 Election denier:

“[M]any Republicans, myself included, thought that the 2020 presidential election was probably stolen, even though that fact could not be proved in a court of law.”
Not two years ago dude was writing to the Yale Daily News saying he supports affirmative action and signing a SCOTUS amicus brief with the liberal Amar brothers against the Independent State Legislature theory abovethelaw.com/2022/11/federa…
Read 10 tweets
May 16
Might as well get a thread started tracking Justice Jackson's emerging pro-democracy constitutional vision
Jackson came straight out of the blocks in October 2022 to give full weight to the proper understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Amendments as keys to our ensuring a robust multiracial democracy today:



Image
Image
Image
Image
(Here's the audio of that exchange)
Read 15 tweets
Apr 16
Justice Thomas just suggested J6, legally, is no different than any other violent attempt to disrupt official proceedings
Alito’s clearly for throwing out the obstruction charges against the J6 defendant here, too.
The liberals are all clearly with the government’s use of the obstruction statute against the J6 defendants.
Read 23 tweets
Dec 28, 2023
Here’s the Colorado Republican Party’s SCOTUS petition via its lawyers, who redacted their generally public contact info even though SCOTUS def won’t redact when it soon uploads the petition to the docket page. media.aclj.org/pdf/Colorado-R…


Image
QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Supreme Court of Colorado held that states possess authority, regardless of the lack of congressional authorization, to determine that a presidential candidate is disqualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified as an insurrectionist. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the President falls within the list of officials subject to the disqualification provision of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment? 2. Whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing to the extent of all...
Sekulow making his grand return after repping Trump in his fight to keep his financial records from the Manhattan DA
That came after his defense of Trump during the second impeachment politico.com/news/magazine/…
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(