Thread by @davidfrum

Whoah, this opinion in Trump v. Boockvar:

"Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise
almost seven million voters."

"This Court has been presented with ... speculative accusation ... unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its
sixth most populated state."

"Plaintiffs have made multiple
attempts at amending the pleadings, and have had attorneys both appear and
withdraw in a matter of seventy-two hours."

"There have been at least two perceived
discovery disputes, one oral argument, and a rude and ill-conceived voicemail
which distracted the Court’s attention from the significant issues at hand."

"Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This
claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from
two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent."

"That Plaintiffs are trying to mix-and-match claims to bypass contrary
precedent is not lost on the Court."

"The Court was required to embark on an extensive project of examining almost every case cited to by Plaintiffs to piece
together the theory of standing as to this Plaintiff – the Trump Campaign."

"Even if Plaintiffs had standing, they fail to state an equal-protection claim."

"All [that] Plaintiffs have
alleged is that Secretary Boockvar allowed counties to choose whether or not they
wished to use the notice-and-cure procedure. No county was forced to adopt
notice-and-cure; each county made a choice to do so, or not."

"Moreover, even if they could state a valid claim, the Court could not grant Plaintiffs the relief they seek."

"Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they
cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes
of millions of others."

"Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek
to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race. This is simply not how the Constitution works."

"Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating
the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania."

"Because this Court has no
authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions
of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief."

"None of these allegations (or the others in this section) claim that the Trump
Campaign’s watchers were treated differently than the Biden campaign’s watchers."

"Simply alleging that poll watchers did not have access or were denied access to
some areas does not plausibly plead unequal treatment."

"Defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted
with prejudice. Leave to amend is denied."

[Citing precedent] "'“Among the grounds that could justify
a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice,
and futility.'"

Here via @bradheath is the full opinion from which I've selected the foregoing highlights ... courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

@bradheath "When we said, 'Release the kraken,' we didn't mean ... AGAINST US!"