Interesting essay samples and examples on: https://essays.io/dissertation-examples-samples/
This just appeared in the Washington Post. The Trump campaign continues filing lawsuits. His lawyers should be disbarred for filing multiple frivolous lawsuits.
Federal judge rejects latest effort by Trump allies to overturn election results, saying lawsuit ‘would be risible were its target not so grave’
A federal judge rejected yet another attempt by allies of President Trump to overturn the November election results on Monday, saying the lawsuit “would be risible were its target not so grave” and suggesting he will consider asking for disciplinary action for the lawyers involved.
More than 90 judges have rejected efforts by Trump or his allies to overturn the November vote. In Michigan, the city of Detroit has asked another judge to consider disciplinary action against Sidney Powell, a lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in a number of suits.
The latest suit was filed Dec. 22 by the Amistad Project, a conservative group that had already filed and lost a number of lawsuits targeting the vote in various states. This last-ditch effort was filed against Vice President Pence, both houses of Congress, the leaders of five states and the electoral college — a body that does not exist as a permanent entity — and argued that the Constitution requires that state legislatures alone certify presidential electors. It asked a federal judge in D.C. to stop Congress from certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s victory when it meets to read the electoral college votes on Wednesday.
In a seven-page opinion, District Court Judge James Boasberg rejected the effort, citing a series of fatal flaws with the suit. The plaintiffs, he wrote, had filed in the wrong court, did not have standing to sue and had made no effort to serve their opponents with the suit, a legal requirement to move the process forward.
More importantly, he wrote, “the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution.”
“It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States,” he wrote.
He wrote that their central contention — that only state legislatures can certify presidential electors — was “flat out wrong” and would require him to ignore decades of precedent and Supreme Court decisions to overturn a number of state laws.
“Plaintiffs’ theory that all of these laws are unconstitutional and that the Court should instead require state legislatures themselves to certify every Presidential election lies somewhere between a willful misreading of the Constitution and fantasy,” he wrote.
He added, however, that the plaintiffs’ failure to even try to serve the many parties they had sued made it difficult of him to believe the lawsuit was intended to be taken seriously.
“Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures,” he wrote, adding that he was contemplating referring the case to the court’s Committee on Grievances “for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel.”
Erick G. Kaardal, the Minneapolis-based lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of the group, did not respond to a request for comment.