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

Feb 27
No, these people are pushing clearly unconstitutional/illegal policies precisely because they hope this SCOTUS will be a willing partner in their reactionary revolution or will be powerless in the face of departmentalist defiance—and if the people resist then poof go elections
These people are seeking nothing short of an FDR-style constitutional revolution but without his political mandate to override the existing order—let alone return to the one FDR’s election repudiated. Image
Image
FDR was reelected by even larger margins in 1936 AFTER the old guard SCOTUS struck down his first New Deal.

Do Trump’s people actually think he’ll get the same results via an internecine war with an otherwise simpatico SCOTUS? No. Bc they don’t think they answer to the people. Image
Read 9 tweets
Feb 9
Dude's deliberately misreading a very short, digestible, and temporary judicial order so to lay the groundwork for going full Jackson Apocrypha in service to his movement's authoritarian agenda.

Read the order for yourself:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… x.com/JDVance/status…
These people are all but actually up in arms over the judge's restraining "political appointees" from accessing Treasury's payment system, and lying to you that it includes the Secretary and other cabinet members, when it's clearly aimed at people like the DOGEbros. Image
Image
Image
Image
Could the judge have been clearer? Sure. But this is still clear to any plain reader. Could the order have been narrower? Sure, another judge approved such a deal between private plaintiffs and the admin over DOGEbro access while litigation played out: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Read 9 tweets
Jan 23
This filing appears to be the Trump DOJ’s first defense of his birthright citizenship EO Image
Image
Here’s WA/AZ/IL/OR’s complaint against Trump’s birthright citizenship EO storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…Image
Image
Image
Trump’s DOJ was responding to this motion from WA/AZ/IL/OR seeking a temporary restraining order against the “Citizenship Stripping Order” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…Image
Image
Read 20 tweets
Jan 10
aaaaand the SCOTUS TikTok args started immediately after this
Trump's first-term SG is repping TikTok to fight a law he'd likely have defended had Congress passed it before 2020
Thomas sounds like he'll vote to uphold the ban as targeting ByteDance, a foreign company
Read 36 tweets
Nov 9, 2024
Curious if Jim Ho will renounce his defense of birthright citizenship if he thinks a SCOTUS nom depends on doing so
Didn’t matter for CA5 but SCOTUS is different…as will be the vetters this time texastribune.org/2017/10/11/jim…
Read 6 tweets
Jul 1, 2024
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

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!

:(