sometimes, yes. other times, not so much.
his opinion of the judge has no bearing on the decision. i read it, my opinion is the judge went too far. maybe appelate courts will agree, maybe they won’t.
In the formal legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court.
it can be appealed, and will be. once appeals are exhausted, if they are denied, then it cannot be refiled. other cases can be.
No it can’t.
lol… okay.
of course it can. being dismissed with prejudice means it can’t be refiled, not that it can’t be appealed.
The dismissal can be appealed.
It won’t be overturned, though.
thank you karnack
You don’t need to see the future to recognize that the arguments they’ve made are frivolous.
the arguments haven’t been heard yet.
Yes, they were. I listened to them myself.
One of the factors for injunctive relief is the chances the petitioner will succeed on the merits. They have presented their arguments on the merits. The judge told them to ■■■■ off.
1 Like
So they went to court seeking injunctive relief with no evidence? That makes no sense whatsoever.
(Or even arguments, apparently)
3 Likes
Your honor, we want these votes thrown out.
Why?
Ummm…
Get outta here!
5 Likes
Got it! So “dismissed with prejudice” is great for Trump.
no, the merits have not been heard. the dismissal does not judge the merits, it simply a matter of the judge deciding that even if the accusations are true, regardless of the merits, it is not likely toi succeed. there has been no evidentiary hearing. the judge is likely right seeing as how voting is a fundamental right and the case will be decided using strict scrutiny, which to my understanding means to throw out one ballot, you have to show that one ballot should be thrown out… 60,000 times. on that basis, it is unlikely trump can prevail.
i heard a charge yesterday sworn to by affidavit from more than one witness of 10’s of thousands of ballots coming in in the middle of the night and being run through the machines several times. if true, thats horrendous, but how do you prove which ballots they are? strict scrutiny will not allow the courts to pick a number, they will need proof of each ballot.
who said that? i simply corrected you completely wrong statement
Yes it can. It isn’t likely to win an appeal, but they can keep appealing to higher courts.
“Made by an Obama appointment” isn’t a winning legal argument.
Appealing a dismissal isn’t the same thing you know.
A dismissal for failure to state a claim under which relief can be brought is a ruling on the merits.
