Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What part of the judge's ruling was not based upon law and facts as they were presented? Please be specific.
Court procedure is not opinion.
I guess I'll ask you, too: What part of the judge's ruling was not based upon law and/or fact?
The purpose of the punishment is to set an example for anyone else who might entertain the notion of filing a case with no merit or standing.
It is a sad state when multiple posters decide to attack the judge rather than the facts. I can only conclude that they do not like the decision, but have to grudgingly agree with it because they cannot provide any valid arguments against it.
You will get a response from your request because there is know credible rebuttal. You will have to wait until Tucker tells them what to say.
Tucker and his writers are probably pouring through it to try and find a phrase that can be twisted, then connected with ellipses to another phrase that can be twisted, to completely misrepresent the ruling.
Can you cite errors of fact or legal interpretation in her ruling? Have you considered for a moment that the judge may be ethical, on the right side of the law, and has published a 110 page judgment that you can use to support your opinion that she is wrong?
I suggest you put up or shut up. Provide some reason why you thing the judge’s legal ruling is wrong. Hopefully you will come up with something more compelling than your dislike of Democrats.
OK.
I WILL save this and EVERY TIME a repub makes ruling the left does NOT like, I will post it so YOU and our left friends can do the same.
P.S.,I DON'T recall you EVER doing the same in the past when a repub appointed judge made a ruling.
national average fee for an attorney is $360 an hour. i'd recommend getting 9 friends together and all pitch in $36 to buy an hours worth of time from an attorney to have all the points listed in the judges sanction explained to you.
A remedial reading comprehension course is a lot cheaper.
I WILL save this and EVERY TIME a repub makes ruling the left does NOT like, I will post it so YOU and our left friends can do the same.
Feel free to save this. No worries on my part.
Quote:
P.S.,I DON'T recall you EVER doing the same in the past when a repub appointed judge made a ruling.
I probably have not. I do not generally use ad hominem attacks against people. That is actually the point to some of my responses on this thread. I much prefer to discuss facts rather than use slurs.
Thank you for recognizing this.
Quote:
Me thinks your bias s showing through!
You mean my fairness, right? You just acknowledged that I do not attack judges on the basis of who appointed them.
I WILL save this and EVERY TIME a repub makes ruling the left does NOT like, I will post it so YOU and our left friends can do the same.
Have at it.
You are free to criticize me if and when I criticize the judge for reasons other than the ruling issued by the judge. "Reasons other than" includes: hair color, gender, alma mater, the person who appointed the judge, place of residence, favorite NFL team, etc.
A 110 page decision reduced to "it's an Obama judge", did anyone read the decision. Powell compared this to Brown vs Board of Education, weird defense.
Quote:
V. Conclusion
In summary, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ counsel filed this lawsuit in
bad faith and for an improper purpose. Further, they presented pleadings that (i)
were not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or establishing new law” and (ii) contained
factual contentions lacking evidentiary support or likely to have evidentiary
support.
Finally, by failing to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit on the date
Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged it would be moot and thereby necessitating the
filing of motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs’ attorneys unreasonably and vexatiously
multiplied the proceedings.
For these reasons (and not for any conduct that occurred on appeal), the
Court holds that sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel are warranted under Rule 11,
§ 1927, and the Court’s inherent authority. Sanctions are required to deter the
filing of future frivolous lawsuits designed primarily to spread the narrative that
our election processes are rigged and our democratic institutions cannot be trusted.
Notably, many people have latched on to this narrative, citing as proof counsel’s
submissions in this case. The narrative may have originated or been repeated by
Former President Trump and it may be one that “many Americans” share (see ECF
No. 161 at Pg ID 5817); however, that neither renders it true nor justifies counsel’s
exploitation of the courts to further spread it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
