Thread by @bradheath

Pennsylvania has filed a brief opposing Trump's request to enjoin certification of the state's election (which already happened). "No federal court has ever issued an order enjoining a state's certification, or directing decertification, of presidential electors."

Pennsylvania notes that Trump's lawyers didn't adhere to the procedural requirements for seeking an injunction.

Pennsylvania also argues that although Trump offers "the rough outline of a potential statistical analysis - and theories about an elaborate conspiracy - precedent requires much more than hypotheticals to justify injunctive relief."

(In other words, if you want an injunction and are claiming you're going to be hard without one, you need to put up some evidence to prove it.)

Pennsylvania seems unclear here on what, exactly, Trump wants to enjoin at this point. But whatever it is, it would be "unprecedented, unjustified and probably unconstitutional."

Pennsylvania says granting Trump's injunction would "grievously undermine the public's trust in the electoral system, contravene democratic principles and reward Appellants for their procedural gamesmanship."

Pennsylvania's latest filing is somewhat less restrained than its merits brief. "Appellants' conduct officers a case study in procedural chicanery."

DNC weighs in. It notes Trump's trying to enjoin PA's election results while pursuing an exceedingly narrow appeal. Even if Trump won, all he'd get is an order instructing a lower court to decide whether there were other grounds for denying his second amended complaint.

DNC: "The Trump campaign's unsupported claims that the election was rigged are meritless. This court should bring an end to Plaintiff's attempts to delay the inevitable, and should allow the millions of votes that Pennsylvania solemnly cast on election day to be counted."

DNC notes that Trump's lawyers themselves argued that decertifying an election "unchar[t]ed ground" and maybe isn't constitutional. (The bracket corrects the typo in Trump's original filing.)

DNC: Even if you could somehow de-certify PA's election, none of the defendants Trump actually sued would have the power to do that. The governor certified the election, and he didn't sue the governor.

DNC: To get an injunction, Trump would have to show that he's likely to succeed in overturning the state's election results. "They cannot do so, as they have not identified any ballots in Pennsylvania that were counted despite being invalid under state law."

Quite a heading. Also, accurate.

The counties also weigh in: A request to overturn an election should be "made only with formidable bases in fact and law. But that is not the case presented to this Court. Plaintiffs' outlandish request is premised largely on claims that are not even part of this case."

Again, Trump's lawyers said they wanted to take this case to the Supreme Court but didn't actually engage an appellate lawyer, and it shows.

One puzzling part of the case has always been that it's brought on behalf of two voters who are alleging the government correctly rejected their ballots. That's .... ?

Defendants in Trump's suit have filed a lot of stuff tonight on his request to overturn the election.

They offer the judges a *lot* of ways to end the case.

I don't really know how to describe it. It's like a kid from down the block going up against an NFL offensive line.