Bit embarrassing for sure.
Given there are SO many court cases that have been filed, and the incredibly
tight time frames involved, is is all but certain a lot of people (think,
junior lawyers) have been involved, so who knows who actually drafted these
particular relevant documents.
That does not take away from the embarrassment we might feel for them though.
In the "citizen done cases" world (not uncommon in relation to human rights
matters I'm familiar with), re-filing and re-writing documents is of course
extremely common (we are not lawyers).
Also, given the incredibly tight schedules for all this Trump stuff (remember
that Monday's electoral college vote is stipulated in the constitution iself,
along with most other key federal election dates) the time that say someone
like Giuliani would normally spend even finding a lawyer sufficiently expert in
"constitutional law" and "kicking around the can on this particular case" may
have been almost non-existent.
We humans have the unfortunate habit (self all too guilty) of putting certain
others on "pedestals of perfection", which is entirely unfair! They are human
too, with the usual needs to for example "actually talk through the issues one
by one, with a suitable listener (!) in order to get clear, handle all the
issues, etc" -- this, of course, takes the time that it takes, especially on
literally obscure corners of constitutional law: it's not like inter-state
presidential SCOTUS election challenges are an everyday occurrence ("intern!
grab me an inter-state SCOTUS original jurisdiction presidential elections
challenge lawyer EXPERT on the phone, oh and I need them in about 20 minutes
tops - on the double now, don't dilly dally!").
And then imagine you just received your SCOTUS rejection, it's late Friday
afternoon, the electoral college meets Monday morning, and you've got about ONE
HOUR to prepare and file a state supreme court challenge, which hopefully this
time has standing!
I've personally been in such situations in the citizens human rights challenges
scene - and WE ain't lawyers. It's not pretty, it's highly stressful, and
failure is expected.
But you push through anyway because that's the right thing to do. This is
street fight territory - you don't have the luxury to even read much (or
sometimes anything) in the way of "past legal precedents" let alone do 6
reviews of your originating motions and then still have abundant time to run it
past your colleagues. The ultimate leveller is the doing of it - so as we say
when we're up against the wall to the arm chair experts: feel free to do
better. But you'd have to actually get in the damn ring to know what that
means.
All we can do is what we can do, as individual humans.
Lawyers are not superhuman walkin encyclopaedias who can expand time by
snapping their Matrix fingers - it may sound strange, but they too are
individual humans with at least certain of the same limitations we each have.
When we put a lawyer on a pedestal, when we put a woman or a man, partner or
parent or child on that pedestal, we are being fundamentally unfair to them.
Treat each event for what it is, and let's have gratitude for the fighters we
have, the achievements folks achieve, and let's cut a little slack for the
"failures" for those who dared step on the battlefield.
Here's Rudy Giuliani on the SCOTUS rejection on standing:
"Not Finished": Rudy Giuliani Speaks Out After Supreme Court Shuts Down Case
https://trendingpolitics.com/not-finished-rudy-giuliani-speaks-out-after-supreme-court-shuts-down-case/
During an interview with Newsmax TV on Friday, President Donald Trump's
personal attorney Rudy Giuliani reacted to the Supreme Court's decision to deny
Texas' lawsuit against key swing states.
“The case wasn’t rejected on the merits, the case was rejected on
standing," Giuliani said. "So the answer to that is to bring the case now to
the district court by the president, by some of the electors, alleging some of
the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.”
Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield said, “Mr. Mayor, I know you talked to the
president just after this ruling came down. What’s his reaction, and how’s he
doing through all this.”
Giuliani replied, “The president’s reaction is to look at other options.
I mean, we always knew that this was an option, that we would have to convert
this into — in fact, originally, we thought about this as possibly four or five
separate cases. So that is the option we are going to have to go to. There’s
nothing that prevents us from filing these cases immediately in the district
court in which the president, of course, would have standing, some of the
electors would have standing in that their constitutional rights have been
violated.”
He continued, “We’re not finished. Believe me.”
WATCH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7aOcVU0LBY
Attorney Sidney Powell is also doubling down after the Supreme Court's
decision. On Friday evening, Powell announced that she was making emergency
filings in the states of Georgia, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin.
The announcement from Powell came just hours after the Supreme Court shot
down Texas's lawsuit where they attempted to block the certification of the
2020 election results.
"Pay attention!" Powell tweeted. "We made emergency filings in
#SupremeCourt tonight for #Georgia & #Michigan. Will be filing #Arizona
#Wisconsin shortly. These cases raise constitutional issues and prove massive
#fraud. Our plaintiffs have #standing #WeThePeople will not allow #rigged
elections."
At the same time as Powell, President Trump's team simultaneously filed
an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in Georgia.
...
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:32:10PM +0000, Steven Schear wrote:
> So let me get this straight. These so-called high powered lawyers
> mis-estimated whether SCOTUS would assume Texas has standing (standing is
> the first basic test to determine in a U.S. court if a plaintiff is
> qualified to bring a suit). Give me a break! Only 2nd or 3rd string
> constitutional lawyers could make this error.
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:36 AM Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 06:17:23PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > > Citing a lack of standing, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a brief
> > order that the state "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest
> > in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," adding "All
> > other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
> > >
> > > Supreme Court Tosses Texas Bid To Overturn Election
> > >
> > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-tosses-texas-bid-overturn-election
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, citizens of the swing states have standing, so they can file.
> > >
> > > Trumpers, both legal eagles and folks in their personal capacity, in the
> > 4 swing states (GA, PA, WI, MI?) need to file this case from their home
> > turf, as their interest is surely direct and personal - effected personally.
> > >
> > > I guess this is new territory for some folks...
> >
> >
> > Once parties with sufficient standing ARE properly filed and listed, the
> > Amicus Curiae 19 states can still join in support.
> >
> > Just need lots of folks WITH standing in the 4 swing states at issue -
> > this is what SCOTUS implied "insufficient standing", i.e. we need folks who
> > DO have standing!
> >
> > Voters in GA, PA, MI, WI, each DO have direct standing. Folks from EACH
> > of these 4 states must now file, in order to solve this technicality of
> > "insufficient standing".
> >
> > Good luck from Aus!
> >
