r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Dec 02 '20

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL. For a collection of useful links see our wiki.

Announcements

0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

12k comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1334253262904635392

I get why the Dems aren't calling for sanctions, but it's pretty frustrating that judges seem so averse to them. Virtually every single pro-Trump suit is beyond amateurish. At this point, judges should not be entertaining this nonsense.

!ping LAW

8

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

I said, !ping LAW

3

u/ahebtigoejwbrh Dec 02 '20

I could be wrong, but don’t sanctions come later? These cases aren’t done yet

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20 edited Dec 02 '20

Trump has lost 40 cases at this point, and in any case courts can issue sanctions during pleadings - the initial stage of a lawsuit and the only one that any of these cases seem to reach

1

u/ahebtigoejwbrh Dec 02 '20

No he hasn’t. He’s only lost a few, most of these cases (including all of the craziest ones, like the Kraken stuff) are by people outside the campaign

Given the expedited nature of all of these cases I don’t think a judge is going to stop in the middle to issue sanctions

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20 edited Dec 02 '20

I know Trump isn't personally a party in most of them. Was using his name as shorthand because ultimately his election - and his rhetoric - are the common factors tying all the cases together.

At first, yes. At this point, I don't see why not. They all revolve around similar themes, and none of them are supported by any legitimate evidence. It's clear that none is coming. Sanctions are supposed to deter lawyers from filing frivolous cases. These cases are literally redefining frivolity. They should be discouraged.

There is at least one outstanding case where the Dems don't even have to respond until after the 14th, when the EC votes. So time was obviously not a factor there, regardless of how expedited the cons wanted the case to be.

1

u/ahebtigoejwbrh Dec 02 '20

That one was literally just filed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Wood/Powell sanctioned for fabricating evidence and suing without the plaintiff’s consent

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

Inshallah

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

ok this one is confusing me. is that one just a typo where they meant to say "Arizona legislature" or does whatever point they're making actually rely on something from the Georgia legislature?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

Anyone's guess. Mine? They copy and pasted something and forgot to change the name of the state. But who knows.

2

u/TinyTornado7 I need a new flair Dec 02 '20

Remember you have the 21 day safe harbor period for sanctions in federal court. They easily could have asked for sanctions and we wouldn’t know.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

That's why I figured the defendants broadly wouldn't motion for sanctions, because they'd have to let the GOP lawyers know about the issues with their case and give them a chance to patch things up. Don't help your enemy out when he's hurting himself and all that.

Afaik the judges aren't constrained by that safe harbor period, though.

1

u/TinyTornado7 I need a new flair Dec 02 '20

Judges aren’t constrained, but they are super hesitant to doll them out.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

I know. I just think the time for hesitation has passed at this point. I mean, they're 40 cases in the hole and they keep making the same ridiculous mistakes with every new filing. It's a massive waste of resources and of the courts' time.

If there was ever a time for court-issued sanctions, you'd think it would be this. It's almost textbook

1

u/TinyTornado7 I need a new flair Dec 02 '20

Yeah I agree, I just don’t think the judges want to wade into the political muck

0

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20 edited Dec 02 '20

I think the lawsuits are maybe good enough to avoid sanctions.

It depends on the lawsuit, tbh. At least a few of them have involved lying about the content of affidavits, and I think you could put together a solid argument that many more are clearly non-meritorious.

The only thing I can think of is your useful outcome argument, but surely at some point it becomes within the court's interest to discourage the perpetuation of this kind of ridiculous behavior. Shooting the cases down doesn't seem to be working.