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

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
Dec 22, 2023
SCOTUS declines Jack Smith’s request to quickly resolve POTUS immunity issue, tells DC Circuit YOU FIRST supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

Image
No noted dissents. Maybe libs trust that CADC will hand down its decision right after 1/9 oral args so to get whole resolved in time for 3/4 trial date?
Or maybe no sense of urgency anymore now that they’ll be deciding as late as June whether half of Smith’s charges against Trump can actually stand
Read 16 tweets
Dec 15, 2023
2nd Circuit, sitting en banc, finds that non-transgender female high school athletes have standing to sue Connecticut for Title IX sex discrimination over the state's inclusion of transgender female athletes in track and field competitions. ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys…

Image
We do not consider whether Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims have any merit or whether they would be entitled to the relief that they seek as a matter of equity, but rather whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear their claims in the first instance. We conclude that it does, for the reasons advocated for both by Plaintiffs and by Intervenors. First, Plaintiffs have established Article III standing at this stage in the litigation. They have pled a concrete, particularized, and actual injury in fact that is plausibly redressable by monetary damages and an injunction ordering Defendants t...
CA2 says if the state made trans girls compete with boys, and "transgender girls alleged that such a policy discriminated against them on the basis of sex and deprived them of publicly recognized titles and placements, they too would have standing to bring a Title IX claim."
"On remand, the district court should assess in the first instance whether Plaintiffs’ complaint states a claim for a violation of Title IX."

IOW: now that you can sue, you have to prove you actually have a case.
Read 14 tweets
Sep 6, 2023
Translation: Sure we are openly defying a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling but we think Justice Kavanaugh will flip his vote if we come back at him with the exact argument he told us to make when he sided against us last time
Alabama’s gonna “raise that temporal argument” and hope Kavanaugh thinks that the Voting Rights Act no longer should authorize “race-based redistricting.”

Question is whether Kav left that loaded gun out for immediate use or for some years from now.
The three-judge district court opinion smacking down Alabama’s defiance contained a section on Kavanaugh’s concurrence to show why Alabama must lose but completely ignored the part where Kav wrote how Alabama could have won—and may yet still win—his vote s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2393…
"Fourth," Justice Kavanaugh emphasized, "Alabama asserts that § 2, as construed by Gingles to require race-based redistricting in certain circumstances, exceeds Congress's remedial or preventive authority," but "the constitutional argument presented by Alabama is not persuasive in light of the Court's precedents." Id. at 1519 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
Read 6 tweets
Aug 9, 2023
Just unsealed from DC Circuit:

Jack Smith got a warrant for Trump’s tweet data from Twitter, Twitter was too a shambles to meet its production deadlines, claimed 1A as a defense, got hit with contempt sanctions, and lost its appeal.

https://t.co/oF5DgP6ZnScadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opini…
PAN, Circuit Judge:* The district court issued a search warrant in a criminal case, directing appellant Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter") to produce information to the government related to the Twitter account "@realDonaldTrump." The search warrant was served along with a nondisclosure order that prohibited Twitter from notifying anyone about the existence or contents of the warrant. Twitter initially delayed production of the materials required by the search warrant while it unsuccessfully litigated objections to the nondisclosure order. Although Twitter ultimately complied wit...
All-Dem panel (Obama. Biden, Biden) rejected Twitter’s argument that the nondisclosure order was a prior restraint on speech…namely, the company’s desire to tell the public—and Trump—about the search warrant.

Twitter's contrary arguments are unpersuasive. First, Twitter claimed that the government's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the criminal investigations was undermined by information already in the public sphere. Twitter asserted that "the cat [was] out of the bag: the public ... already [knew] that the Special Counsel [was] investigating the former President and collecting his private electronic communications." Opening Br. 25. We disagree. At the time of Twitter's challenge to the nondisclosure order, some information about grand jury subpoenas or visitors to the f...
Second, Twitter proposed two less restrictive alternatives to the nondisclosure order that it contended could address the government's concerns "while still enabling it to meaningfully exercise its First Amendment rights." Opening Br. 31. Those proposals involved revealing parts of the warrant to the former President or to his representatives. At the time that Twitter made its motion, those suggested alternatives were nonstarters because they would not have maintained the confidentiality of the criminal investigation and therefore risked jeopardizing it. …. In any event, such acti...
court to take on the unpalatable job of "assessing] the trustworthiness of a would-be confidante chosen by a service provider." Id.; see also E-Mail Accounts, 468 F. Supp. 3d at 562 (holding that a proposal "to notify someone at the [targeted] company, like a senior official or a lawyer in its United States office, of the warrant ... was not as effective as the nondisclosure order" in protecting an investigation). Twitter thus failed to proffer any alternative to the nondisclosure order that "accomplished] the government's goals equally or almost equally effectively...
Don’t we all the pendency of this appeal, Twitter, Inc. merged into a privately held company named X Corp. Opening Br. iii. For ease of reference, we refer to appellant as "Twitter" throughout this opinion.
Read 7 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!

:(