So questions like this come up a lot and it reflects a misunderstanding of how courts work, so I figured I'd address it a bit more broadly. Every case gets "heard," if by "heard" you mean "a court looks at the arguments and considers them".
Sometimes that happens only on a motion to dismiss, when the court hears arguments that the case can't possibly win even if all the facts it claims are actually true, and then dismisses the case. Sometimes it happens on summary judgment, after discovery, when the parties argue
that the evidence conclusively proves their version of the facts, so they should win. Sometimes it's after a trial.

But our courts have NO mechanism for a judge to just randomly look at a case and say "wow, this is stupid, I dismiss it"
So, back to the original point: Every case gets "heard". Even if it's only in the form of the Plaintiff getting to explain why they think their allegations, if true, would mean they win, and even if the judge then says "no, you lose anyway," they've been "heard"

• • •

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

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen 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 @AkivaMCohen

29 Dec
OK, as promised, a live-read thread on Gohmert's motion in the stupid "the VP gets to pick the next President" litigation.

I'm not going to repeat stuff I addressed when I went through the complaint so if you need a refresher, start here
So first of all, let's see what they're asking for. An expedited decision on the case, and permanent injunctive relief (i.e. an order directing Pence how to act when counting electoral votes) and they want it by Thursday the 31st. The second two screenshots are the local rule
They do not, however, explain why 12/31 is the magic date (when the acts they're worrying about would be on 1/6), and there's a slight logistical problem in asking for a schedule that requires a ruling on a motion in 3 days when you HAVEN'T YET BOTHERED TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT
Read 95 tweets
28 Dec
Oh come on, guys, give me some time off!

Note: This is a new litigation seeking a declaratory judgment that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the 12th Amendment.

It doesn't
Here's the entire 12th Amendment. Pay attention to the highlighting and follow along
Here's the 12A process

1) "The Electors" meet, vote, and transmit their lists of votes to the President of the Senate
2) The PoS SHALL open the certificates and count the votes
3) Whoever has a majority wins
4) If nobody has a majority after counting, the House delegations vote
Read 75 tweets
28 Dec
Somebody asked me about this idiotic "PenceCard 2: Electric Boogaloo" article, and people, just stop worrying about this stuff.

americanthinker.com/articles/2020/…
The conspiracy wing of the GOP is going to keep pumping out these "Ten Neat Tricks to steal an election [number 8 will shock you!]" articles straight through the inauguration. (Yes - don't expect this to stop after the electoral votes are counted)
None of it is real. None of it has any legal basis. It's fantasy written by fantasists for coping MAGA-ites who find reality just too painful to accept. Ignore it.
Read 9 tweets
27 Dec
Seth has blocked me. But you all should see this anyway. Aside from Seth's prior admissions that he sees "metamodernism" as a way of "lying things into being" (see his post-Hillary nomination piece from 2016), his post-hoc justification for lying to you

Is that he's just "brainstorming". But it's easy to do that without abusing your trust and lying to you about what the law *is*. When Seth says things like "a pardon is invalid if it's obstructing impeachment" he isn't "brainstorming" - he's making a foundational claim about the
law that is simply false. It would have been easy enough to come clean and say "I'd like it if we reinterpret the relevant provisions to mean...", acknowledged the contrary precedent, and reckoned with it. That's someone arguing for a change in the law
Read 6 tweets
27 Dec
Kurds are not Arabs. Are they "Middle Eastern"?
Iranians are not Arabs. Are they "Middle Eastern"?
Some Israelis are not Arabs. Are they "Middle Eastern"?
Read 6 tweets
24 Dec
Oh, for fuck's sake, Seth. Can't you take like two weeks off from misinforming people about the law?

Almost every word of this thread is wrong, starting from its fundamental premise. The Pardon Clause does NOT the PARDON power that way
Here's what the Pardon Clause says: the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
It does NOT say "except where the offense is relevant to the impeachment of someone else" or "except where the pardon will obstruct someone else's impeachment"
Read 40 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!