(This post may contain disputed claims. We make no assertions as to the validity of the information presented by our Opinion Columnist. We are an opinion blog, not a traditional news outlet, and this post should be treated as such. Enjoy.)President Donald Trump’s campaign is reporting they scored two big wins in the key battleground states of Michigan and Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, who was appointed by Barack Obama, got torched after he attempted to thwart Trump’s PA lawsuit. You’ll love this.
President Trump’s campaign is reporting they scored two victories Monday in their effort to contest results in several key battleground states. Michigan state legislators agreed to hold a hearing into election irregularities while a federal appeals court expedited proceedings to consider Trump’s legal challenge in Pennsylvania.
“The developments were announced by Trump campaign senior legal counsel Jenna Ellis, who said the GOP-led Michigan House would hold its hearing at 9 a.m. on Wednesday,” Just the News reports.
“We are grateful to Michigan House lawmakers for not rushing to certify inaccurate election results,” Ellis said. “We are confident they will share the same concerns once they see the extent of the outright fraud and disregard for the law that happened in Michigan and across the nation. Every American should want to know the truth.”
“Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield, who over the weekend said he feared the state was heading toward a constitutional crisis, did not immediately return a call seeking comment,” they add.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled Trump’s “motion for emergency expedited review is granted at the direction of the court.”
The campaign must file its initial brief by Monday afternoon, and the court said it “will advise if oral argument desired.”
The Trump campaign is appealing U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann’s decision Saturday to dismiss the campaign’s lawsuit seeking to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania on the grounds that Democratic-led counties made changes to voting that allegedly violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Brann, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote that he “has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens.”
Radio host Mark Levin, who is a noted Constitutional scholar and attorney, torched Judge Brann.
“This Obama judge in Pennsylvania is outrageous,” Levin tweeted after Brann dismissed an effort by Trump’s legal team. “I read the complaint. It was full of affidavits and serious constitutional issues that absolutely overcame a motion to dismiss.”
1. This Obama judge in Pennsylvania is outrageous. I read the complaint. It was full of affidavits and serious constitutional issues that absolutely overcame a motion to dismiss.
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) November 22, 2020
Levin went on to explain in a lengthy Twitter thread why he believes the case had merit and did not deserve to be thrown out.
“There was unquestionably a reasonable basis in fact and law to proceed, and to allow the Trump campaign’s lawyers to conduct immediate discovery,” Levin wrote. “This is a miscarriage of justice. And the judge’s opinion reads as if it was written for the media.”
“The problem the Trump campaign is facing now is the unwillingness of judges to actually do their jobs, certainly in this case, and certainly in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the chief justice failed to do his job,” Levin explains.
Levin argued that Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution supported the president when it states “explicitly that the state legislatures, not judges or governors, make election laws” and added that he “hopes” the Trump team will appeal the decision.
“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens,” Brann wrote in his scathing dismissal. “That has not happened.”
The Trump legal team responded to the ruling saying it “turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Even renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said that Trump campaign legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election results could rise to the Supreme Court, and he thinks Trump has a very strong case in Pennslyvania.
“At least under the Constitutional challenge, the Article II challenge in Pennsylvania, they have a pretty good chance of winning,” he said.
Fighting injustice is very difficult when you have to go up against leftist judges who are willing to use the bench to advance their own political agenda. It’s judicial activism at its worst. Let’s all pray that these cases going forward are ruled based on the law and not on some activist judge’s own biased agenda.
