DU lawyers, what does this mean? --2016 election nullification case advances

[librechik]

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/23/supreme-court-just-advanced-law-suit-nullify-2016-election/

I have been schooled by our legal experts that this whole petition thing is dumb and has no chance whatsoever. So what does this mean, please? Is it just the death rattle?

"A longshot legal petition to nullify the 2016 federal elections based on the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” just moved forward at the Supreme Court this week, after last week the Trump administration declined to reply. Our Supreme Court set the case for Conference on Friday, March 17th to put the petition in front of all of the Justices. (see below)

According to a career prosecutor interviewed for this story, four of the eight justices must then vote that Blumstein vs. U.S. meets their high standard to go to a full hearing. Additionally, the three Massachusetts women who petitioned the court have asked for the appointment of a Special Master, which is a special officer to weigh the evidence and make findings to the Court. There has never before been a case about the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (which obliges the federal government to protect states from foreign invaders) like this decided in front of the Supreme Court..."

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/23/supreme-court-just-advanced-law-suit-nullify-2016-election/

[malchickiwick]

1. SNOPES doesn't seem to think it's got much of a chance...

Here's how they rank it:


The article also includes this
"We contacted Counsel Press for further clarification and spoke to Liebman, who reiterated that under 20 percent of distributed petitions even rated discussion during the conferences. Liebman added that the Chief Justice directed the Court to take note of cases they believed merited discussion, and the vast majority of distributed cases didn’t rate. He opined that the individuals who filed this petition had a better chance of winning a Powerball lottery than of seeing their petition move forward."

http://www.snopes.com/scouts-nullify-the-2016-election/

On a lighter note: I love the Salvador Dali gif!!

[FreepFryer]

2. Snopes it. "Mixture" procedurally advancing, just as Orly Taitz's did, w/ little chance (n/t)

http://www.snopes.com/scouts-nullify-the-2016-election/

WHAT'S TRUE
A Writ of Mandamus over the 2016 election filed by three petitioners in January 2017 is one the Supreme Court's docket.

WHAT'S FALSE
The petition in question has almost no likelihood of any further advancement.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It's a petition for a writ of mandamus.

The basis of the claim by three registered voters in Massachusetts is that the government failed to prevent "cyber intrusions" by the Russians into state elections systems and that therefore Trump's inauguration should be enjoined and a new election held. https://www.scribd.com/document/340153910/Blumstein-vs-U-S-Writ-of-Mandamus (A writ of mandamus is an order that is issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal or other government agency or individual to do or not do something they are legally obligated to do, or not do). This is the longest of long shots.

[Gothmog]

4. Nothing-it means that the case will be discussed in conference at the SCOTUS

I have not read the case but I cannot figure out how the SCOTUS could set aside the election. The political question doctrine will stop this

[PoliticAverse]

6. They likely won't be discussing it, most such things are simply dismissed. n/t

[Gothmog]

7. Agreed

This is a political question type issue that the SCOTUS will not touch

[PoliticAverse]

5. It means about as much as all those Orly Taitz attempts to nullify Obama's election...

that were similarly processed by the Supreme Court.

[librechik]

8. thanks to all

[Wounded Bear]

9. Given there is no procedure in the Constitution to "nullify" an election...

this all sounds like procedural noise.

We all wish it could happen, but seems pretty unlikely.

[msanthrope]

10. It's asking for certiorari from SCOTUS on a writ of mandamus.

The lawsuit hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. It won't get cert.

[elleng]

11. 'dumb and has no chance whatsoever' is a dumb thing to say,

but it won't be the first time.

Taking up this 'matter' is a stretch, but there is always a chance.

[librechik]

12. thank you, elleng--I always value your opinion.

there's got to be some justice around here someplace. Now where did I put it down? We'll find it.

[elleng]

13. Thanks, librechik!

Yes, going out in a bit to look for justice!