[ad_1]
Trump has nominated more than 200 judges, apparently hoping they will support him in the legal battle, but in the end to no avail.
“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to save our country from the greatest electoral abuse in the history of the United States. 78% of the people feel (or know well) that this is a fraudulent election,” said the president. American Donald Trump wrote on Twitter on December 10, after Texas filed a lawsuit against four battlefield states, including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, accusing these governments of unconstitutionally changing electoral rules, causing falsehoods. result deviation.
However, Trump’s ray of hope was extinguished after the US Supreme Court, home to three of his nominated justices, dismissed the lawsuit on December 11, arguing that Texas had no legal right to appeal. complaints about how other states conduct elections.
“This is a huge and humiliating defeat for justice. The American people have been deceived, our country must be ashamed. We were not even given a chance to appear in court.” Trump wrote in a tweet on December 12.
US President Donald Trump at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, 12/12. Image: AFP.
In fact, the president’s team has appeared in dozens of trials, but almost all attempts to fight the law have failed. As of December 11, more than 50 Trump lawsuits have either failed or been dismissed by the court.
At least 86 justices, from the lowest judges in state courts to members of the United States Supreme Court, have thrown out at least one post-election lawsuit filed by Trump or his supporters. According to Washington Post commentators Rosalind Helderman and Elise Viebeck, this shows almost complete consensus in the US judicial system, while also demonstrating Trump’s limitations in imposing influence on the judiciary. , which is considered a bulwark that protects the laws and constitution of the United States.
“In a sense, judges are the last wall. They are the branch of government that can say things can’t go any further,” said Charles Gardner Geyh, a professor at the University’s Maurer Law School. Indiana School, USA, he said. “They are committed to upholding the rule of law and they are the only ones doing the right thing.”
Dozens of Republican-nominated and appointed judges also “dealt” a blow to Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, even voicing fierce opposition. More recently, Federal Magistrate Brett Ludwig, who was nominated by Trump himself, rejected a lawsuit demanding the cancellation of the election results in Wisconsin.
“An incumbent president who failed in his reelection bid has asked a federal court for help in ditching the popular vote, based on controversial questions about how clearly he has elections. The court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to raise the matter, but he did not he was able to make an argument, “Ludwig said, adding that the rule of law has been enforced. as Trump suggested.
Trump and his allies repeatedly emphasized that their goal is simply to make sure “every valid vote” counts. The president relentlessly mentioned fraud allegations that earned Joe Biden more than 81 million popular votes, while his team questioned the voting process and the vote count. However, the judges found no significant evidence for the allegations and concluded that the president’s vote was valid.
“By standards, the Trump campaign did not prove that invalid votes were cast and counted, or that legitimate votes were not counted for fraud, or that these numbers were equal to or greater than Biden in Nevada,” he wrote in the verdict James Russell, a federal court judge in Nevada.
“Declaring an election unfair does not make it a reality. All accusations require concrete accusations, then evidence, but we get nothing.” Stephanos Bibas, a Pennsylvania federal judge appointed by Trump in 2017, explained. “The voter is the one who chooses the president, not the lawyer.”
“The allegations attracted public attention, created an atmosphere of gossip and allusion, and could not be used as a defense in federal court,” said Diane Humetewa, a federal judge in Arizona. to complaints from attorney Sidney Powell, who previously joined Trump’s legal team.
Unlike politics and the media, the judiciary is governed by certain principles, which apply to all issues, from small to large. A person who wants to make a claim must be eligible, that is, show that they have suffered a specific damage that is likely to be resolved if they win. Judges can only act within their powers, as federal judges can only deal with matters supervised by the state, including the rules governing elections.
On the lawyer’s side, if he claims something to be true, he must have direct and reliable evidence. Yet from time to time, attorneys for Trump and his allies failed to meet this standard. Instead, judges consistently find that plaintiffs make procedural errors, such as filing late, filing incorrectly in court, or making unreasonable requests based on unfounded arguments.
One of the most powerful protests came from Wisconsin Judge Brian Hagedorn, when he refused to hear the case from a conservative group asking the court to overturn the election results.
“This case has to do with something more important than who wins the electoral votes in Wisconsin. In a sense, our belief in our free and fair electoral system, which characterizes ours, is at stake in the enduring strength of the constitutional republic. Once If the court has opened the door to the annulment of the presidential elections, the attempt to close it will be extremely difficult. It is the dangerous route that we are asked to promote, “said Hagedorn.
Judge Linda Parker in Michigan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, had a similar view when she wrote that “the right to vote is one of the most sacred rights in American democracy,” dismissing the claim. cancel Trump ally’s Michigan election results.
“Approval of the lawsuit will deprive more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who with dignity and hope participated in the 2020 elections. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ request.” Parker said.
Professor Geyh notes that the common judges are their education and experience, which leads them to “take the law seriously.” “What we see is an aggressive group of lawyers trying to bring the transition from the political arena, where concepts and laws are no longer so important, to the judiciary, where the rules are. sustainable, “says the professor.
Geyh judged that the judges clearly did not want to be drawn into political struggles. Instead, as Justice Parker stated, the task of electing political leaders, especially the president of the United States, should belong to the voters, not the judges.
“People have spoken,” he said.
Gloss (According to the Washington Post)
