Im just using that as an example for laches in general

@The Mongler they were correct that they never finished the process so on a procedural technicality alone they were right. However this was not a fraud case and the remedy they asked for was pure hackery partisanship

Gotcha

@The Mongler they were right to dismiss it on laches , again because they knew about this for a year and had a election under it. They only complained when the lost

So generally when there is a dismissal for laches the merit is sound

No @The Mongler

They dismissed it in addition to laches @The Mongler that doesn’t mean the merit is sound every time. It’s two different things. In the PA case they were technically right but that does mean this would hold true for every laches case. Do you see the ridiculousness of their lawsuit? I feel like conservatives will just run with the merits part without the full story of how garbage the lawsuit was

Creating a technicality and not doing anything about it for a year and then asking for a ridiculous remedy will get you thrown out of court every time

Yeah I just feel like if the case was fundamentally flawed the court would dismiss based on the facts/law rather than laches but I dont know a lot about it

No @The Mongler the case for as fundamentally flawed

The district court in PA ruled on the merits and suspended certification and then the SC dismissed for laches without any comments on the merits

You can’t revoke votes because of a issue you caused and had a year to fix, and had a election already prior to the general election under those same conditions @The Mongler

@The Mongler they were correct to do so . Laches fits the case. I know people like Barnes will say different but he basically works for the Trump team and does everything he can to bolster that side

However he is incorrect in this and is intentionally mis leading

@The Mongler here is a better understanding of laches

“statute of limitations is concerned only with the time that has passed. Laches is concerned with the reasonableness of the delay in a particular situation and so is more case-specific and more focused on the equitable conduct of the plaintiff.”

Merry Christmas all... wishing you and your family all the best. Adam.

That flies in the Face of your Standing Argument. How can you file prior to actual suffered Damages?

This is about laches

"Ripeness "?

It wasn’t about the injury it was about a incomplete process

They kept repeating that it wasn’t about the fact they lost

Had a Year to Fix?

Had a year to address

Are people still not understanding this very basic thing

Trump was not in prior Elections or was there Electors.

This lawsuit was not about trump

It was not about fraud

It was about a legal technicality

You still need to show Damages.

This is not about the Texas case

That was even dumber than the internal PA case

The Texas case was about standing. Which they did not have

We'll have a Merry Christmas. I was just checking my messages. I have more important things to do. Enjoy!

Not true actually, damages don't need to exist in order to file a lawsuit.

See: Preventive injunction.

It seems to me the remedy effects laches but not the merit? Like PA might have merit and be unconstitutional but they are saying throw out millions of votes which also violates the Constitution. If they asked to have to fixed for next time or asked to have it fixed a year ago they'd be fine. But some the the cases they said do not have merit like trying to have state congress override the popular vote because they lost. Still laches but they'd lose the case if it went forward anyways.

Some have merits.

Anyone in here have cell service affected by the ATT transmission building damages in Tenn?

Some but can't confirm its related

I'm trying to figure out if this person was just riding on the back of the event for internet clout or if this video [now removed] was to be taken seriously.