Petition Before SCOTUS Seeks To Nullify Election

[kpete]

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2017, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)

While the world is paying attention to theatrical battles over President Trump’s executive orders and cabinet nominees, a largely unnoticed and potentially landmark case sits before the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to nullify the results of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election sits on the SCOTUS docket.

A petition for a writ of mandamus is a filing imploring a Court to take mandatory action in the nature of public duty. The writ – filed Jan 18, 2017 by Diane Blumstein, Donna Soodalter-Toman, and Nancy Goodman – has been assigned docket number 16-907.

The main argument for the writ is that, per Article IV § 4 of the U.S. Constitution, it is the job of the federal government to keep U.S. territory safe from foreign invasion. The Constitution stipulates, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” The petition cites evidence of such an invasion, namely the Russian hacking, and asks that the entire 2016 election be nullified, all the way back to the primaries, on the grounds that cyber-territory in the U.S. was invaded with the intention of altering the results of our Presidential election. The petitioners seek an entirely new election.

Per Title 28 of the U.S. Code § 1251, SCOTUS has “original jurisdiction” over cases like this due to the involvement of a foreign state. There is no remedy for the foreign cyber-invasion, they argue, other than complete nullification.

Writ_Cover_BTR.jpg
Docket Number 16-907
?1486914371



“I knew there was a strong legal argument for this, and we had cases prepared in several states, but we decided to consolidate all of our efforts into this one case for the sake of judicial efficiency,” said Jerroll Sanders, who wrote the petition for the writ of mandamus and served as national legal strategist for the group REVOTE. “There is a chance the election could be ruled invalid due to the mountain of evidence that we were invaded with an intent to sway our election. If we are able to argue this case, I think we can win it.”


MORE:
http://shannonfisher.com/wordpress1/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SCOTUS-Writ-of-Mandamus.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/12/1632869/-Petition-Before-SCOTUS-Seeks-To-Nullify-Election

[PoliticAverse]

1. "If we are able to argue this case, I think we can win it" - don't bet the farm. n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Cuts to the chase

It is so clear, comprehensive, simple, evident.

The drip, drip continues.

[Amimnoch]

3. hmm, what happens if this goes 4-4 split?

I know in normal cases the last decision stands, but if this one is appearing before the SCOTUS directly, how is a tie broken?

[KewlKat]

6. May I use your 45 image? I luv it

[onenote]

12. There are few things that I'd bet my life on

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2017, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

but I'd bet my life that this petition is summarily dismissed and that if you could poll the judges to find out where they stood, it would be 8-0 in favor of dismissing it.

[SCantiGOP]

14. One note:

You are 100% correct.

[librechik]

28. yes, but on the other hand if counting the votes in Florida means Bush will lose

then the count must be stopped, no matter the scandal. So fuck this court. And you are right.

[SticksnStones]

4. Now THIS, if it were to be heard, is the kind of remedy

Where the outcome might actually punish the guilty party. Rather than, say, replacing a corrupted republican administration with more republicans.

[brooklynite]

25. And how exactly would this "punish the guilty party"?

This is a civil, not criminal case, and the request is for revocation of the Election result (for which there is no legal basis).

[SticksnStones]

41. Why so terse a response?

I certainly didn't present my post as though I'm a legal scholar.


This entire administration is new territory for all of us.

If it is legally proven that there was significant interference by a foreign government which impacted the outcome of our election process, do you think the courts will just fine the Republican Party?

I have no idea what the outcome will be. These are uncharted waters...

[brooklynite]

44. You miss the point...

...a civil court action comes with a claim of damage and a requested remedy. The Court (especially the Supreme Court) will not impose additional sanctions beyond what has been requested.

The specific claim is that the US Government "failed to protect States against cyber-invasions". NOT that the RNC or the Trump campaign engaged in illegal activities.

Add to which, a Supreme Court case involves a documentary filing and oral arguments; there is no witness testimony which might reveal criminal actions not already documented.

As for the claim itself? There is no evidence provided that the cyber-invasion (as generally understood) affected the outcome of vote tallies. The only supported claim was the theft of private DNC and Clinton campaign emails which were released to the public. However illegal the email theft might be, it's beyond a stretch to suggest that the release of factual information into the public debate about the candidates was "criminal" (Question: would you apply the same principle to the release of the "47%" comments by Romney in 2012?).

[SticksnStones]

47. Beyond saying these are uncharted waters...I didn't really make a point

But you seem to have this all figured out so good on you.

Peace.

[ElementaryPenguin]

61. There is PLENTY of evidence that the vote tallies were hacked

Some people just refuse to consider this! I

[Alice11111]

66. I strongly suspect, based on... but WHAT is the evidence?

Please educate me, and I am NOT being sarcastic.

Evidently, people voted for trump or left the Pres blank, but down ticket voted Dem. It evidently happened in Wisconsin, Michigan and NC, maybe more. What I read was vague though and so were the sources.
Maybe stuff in comments section.

DT and Repubs went ape shit when Stein (Im not a fan, but at least she tried something, even if may have been self serving) wanted a recount, which is different than investigating hacks. If votes had been solid, they would have welcomed it to clear up any misconceptions, especially since she raised the money to pay for it.

There was voter suppression.

However, what I see is either not hacking or Circumstantial, at best. Please help me out if you know sources or information. I think that might change our approach.

[VaBchTgerLily]

5. I'm hoping and praying!!!

[jmg257]

7. Can't wait to see the evidence of hacking. Should be interesting.

[Calista241]

8. I suspect this is another hopeless endeavor.

Much like the 5 minute majority, put Garland on the court, strategy espoused by daily kos as well.

[7962]

9. Wont be heard. Waste of time.

[angrychair]

21. I think you misunderstand

It is being heard, please look at it again.
per the OP: "Docket number 16-907"

Now that doesn't mean it has a good chance of succeeding but it is an actual case on the SCOTUS docket.

[onenote]

40. Being on the docket doesn't mean it will be heard

beyond the Court reading the pleadings and issuing an order, which will be summary in nature and will deny the requested relief.

[angrychair]

51. I'll defer to you point

But it at least got that far. I am not so ignorant that I think it would get past those initial steps.
I also see the point you made in another post about money and effort would be best spent other ways.
While I tend to agree, I look at any effort to ding this awful and abusive administration as a valid effort.

That being said, we do have far more pressing issues in regards to retaking state legislatures and Congress. That is the best way to stop the chaos and hate we are currently experiencing.

[onenote]

52. Getting that "far" is an automatic thing

They filed. So it gets "on the docket." It couldn't get any less far. It could in theory go farther. But it won't.

[Achilleaze]

10. Thank you Sisters

k & r

[Ligyron]

11. Hey, it never hurts to try.

First, they have to decide IF they will even hear this case.

I'm no lawyer, but is it not a mistake to 1st win this case in a lower court if they actually have jurisdiction and standing?

This is not a waste of time IMHO and, if nothing else, shines more light on this abomination of an election.

It will probably never happen but the amount of evidence this could potentially uncover might be enough to sway even some of the deplorables.

So, why not?

[angrychair]

23. I think you misunderstand

Per the OP:
"Docket number 16-907". This means it is already an actual case before the SC.

From the OP: "Per Title 28 of the U.S. Code § 1251, SCOTUS has “original jurisdiction” over cases like this due to the involvement of a foreign state." This means a lower court does not have the ability to hear this case that it only be heard at SCOTUS.

If they will win or not is an entirely different question but it is already a real case.

[Ligyron]

27. Yes, thanks for that!

Kinda what I thought but...

[angrychair]

37. Here is hoping

For a great outcome

[onenote]

32. Wrong wronger and wrongest

Notwithstanding what the article quoted in the OP claims, the linked petition for a writ of mandamus filed with the SCOTUS does NOT claim that the case falls under the Court's original jurisdiction. Such a claim appears nowhere in the petition and the petition does not cite 28 USC 1251 relating to the Court's original jurisdiction. It cites 28 US Code 1331, relating to the original jurisdiction of district courts to hear "federal questions."

The petition is a laughable mess, starting with its nonsensical reliance on Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees every "state" protection against invasion. State. Not individual. These sort of distinctions matter in Constitutional jurisprudence and the idea that every individual has standing under Article IV, Section 4 would get any law student in any law school in the country a failing grade.

This is no more or less a "real" case now than it was when it was originally brought and the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected it summarily and attempts to obtain an emergency stay of that dismissal from Justices Ginsburg and Breyer were rejected as well. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a700.htm

[librechik]

38. thx for completely crushing my hopes

no, seriously. Not kidding. Hope is not a strategy and not welcome in my overall philosophy, even though I write fiction, and hope is the one thing that keeps literature alive and breathing. I want to believe, but I know darn well believing is for suckers.

[onenote]

39. It's not an issue of hope. It's an issue of making the best use of time and resources

And this lawsuit is a terrible use of time and resources that could be devoted to more meaningful judicial challenges, such as those brought against the travel ban order or against individual deportation cases or against other actions that agencies are likely to take under the Trump administration.

[librechik]

43. I think it's time to throw everything at them and see what sticks

because we don't know what will work against the unknown, and we have nothing like any other strategy for the next 4 years. But I admire your restraint.

BTW Who decides what battle is worth our energy? Bring me that person immediately so I can follow him/her.

[hardluck]

60. Sorry

The throw everything at them and see what sticks works for tort law but not constitutional questions. This is a no go for the reasons onenote states.

[Alice11111]

70. !!!

[7962]

49. wow that was definitely an in-depth analysis. Thanks

[LanternWaste]

55. It's on the level of your own consistent analyses

It's on the level of your own consistent analyses, your provisions of evidence to support your allegations, your citations of academic reviews. All of them very, very consistent as well...







Quickly now! Justify a distinction lacking any relevant differences below... else one may think you hold yourself to a much lower standard than you hold others to--

[BigBearJohn]

13. Thank God somebody is making the effort!!!!

[struggle4progress]

15. No thank you.

[keepthemhonestO]

16. ..

we can dream.I don't see it happening though.

[libtodeath]

17. This should have happened in December.

[ananda]

18. Yes, and some of us were calling for it!

Not only do we need a do-over, we need a well
regulated do-over with strong oversight.

[onenote]

34. They did try before inauguration day. And were summarily tossed out of court by the First Circuit

and then by Justice Ginsburg and by Justice Breyer. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a700.htm

And they will be tossed again.

[MineralMan]

19. This will not be taken up by the SCOTUS.

Not a chance.

[librechik]

29. already on docket, per OP

color me shocked. but I won't hope for justice in this benighted country.

[onenote]

33. Getting "on the docket" means absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.

[CTyankee]

35. the court granted cert and that is that...

[onenote]

42. No, the Court didn't grant cert. Cert wasn't even sought.

This is a petition asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus. Although reading the petition, its not clear that the petitioners actually know what a writ of mandamus is since their argument and the relief they seek are not aimed at getting a writ of mandamus. The argument is all about the "errors" purportedly committed by the First Circuit when it denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed with that court on January 5 (prior to the electoral college vote certification and prior to inauguration day) seeking to enjoin the counting of electoral votes and the inauguration from taking place. Not only did the First Circuit dismiss that petition the day after it was filed, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer each refused to grant emergency stays of the First Circuit's order.

The petitioners could have sought SCOTUS review of the First Circuit's denial of their writ of mandamus petition though the vehicle of a petition for certiorari. Or they might have tried (an unusual tactic to say the least) to petition the SCOTUS for a writ of mandamus directing the First Circuit to reconsider the denial of the original writ of mandamus.

Instead, they've filed something they call a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus that challenges the First Circuit's decision but instead of seeking to have the First Circuit's decision reversed, demands that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to various folks (including former Vice President Biden) enjoining from counting the electoral votes that already were counted or conducting an inauguration that already has been conducted. They also seek a declaratory ruling that the 2016 election (apparently all of the 2017 elections - Presidential, House, Senate) were unconstitutional, although how a writ of mandamus becomes a substitute for a properly filed Petition for a Declaratory Judgment is anyone's guess.

It is, as I've said, a laughable mess.

[CTyankee]

45. My bad. you are right cert is granted only from a lower court decision...

I used to work for the ACLU (full of lawyers) but that was a time back. Your descrption of what
happened is absolutely correct.

Watever, your description "a laughable mess" is right on...

[annabanana]

20. Won't happen, but it sure is purty!. . . . n/t

[WillowTree]

22. Yet another exercise in futility.

[Tetunot]

24. SCOTUS Petition

I love that it was filed by three women, we know how much BLOTUS respects women. But no, I don't see them overturning the election. This administration will be removed by the people. Forcing the government & the courts to recognize we will not tolerate our elections being hacked by oligarchs, or outside governments.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Doesn't pass the laugh test. n/t

[Takket]

30. I would be stunned if this doesn't go down 8-0

[mythology]

31. What a worthless waste of time

This is a bad joke and will be laughed at without getting a hearing before the court.

Having a docket number means nothing. The Supreme Court gets about 10,000 requests a year and hears less than 100.

[onenote]

36. The folks behind it are despicable charlatans in my opinion

It's not merely a waste of time. It's also a waste of money. Money raised from gullible people who don't know what the folks behind the petition themselves know -- that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

That money could be spent of something meaningful, such as helping progressive candidates. Or it could be used to help those in need. Frankly, giving that money to a panhandler on the street would be a better way to spend it than giving it to revote.org.

In terms of fleecing people, they're different than Jill Stein only as a matter of degree, not kind.

[MoonRiver]

46. I never contributed ONE RED CENT. But how can anyone not rec this post?

If the petition were to miraculously succeed, that would be awesome!

[Alice11111]

48. As a lawyer, I think if there were a chance in hell, the ACLU

or someone like David Boies would take this on. I have racked my brain to search for an way of a redo. I concluded that this was a flaw or a gap in our Constitution. Heresy, I know. However, even Ginsburg said there were other constitutions better than ours, and ours was not perfect. Were it filed in a way that did have a chance in hell, I would certainly devote my time to work on it, against the odds of success. It would not be the first case I have taken in which I was told it had no chance, but I succeeded. It would be the most important and most difficult. However, it is a case for probably at least 30 of the best legal scholars ever. Unprecedented.
I cannot imagine that if our election were compromised by a foreign power, enemy, or even if there were a significant chance of such a compromise, our founding fathers would expect our country to go through the long channels of impeachment, in a system in which the balance of powers have been completely compromised as well. (Obama's Sup Crt nominee did not even get a hearing after a year. The districts are so badly gerrymandered that there is no pretence of one person, one vote. The Electoral college no longer works to rule out outliers being elected, but thwarts the principle of one person, one vote. There are endless examples. ) While we are going through proper channels outlined in the Constitution, and we are not even doing so, our fundamental principals of government are being dismantled. This situation of events was not contemplated by the founders.
If an attempt filed properly can be made, it should. I do agree that the case as filed, will not stand. I cannot see the SCOTUS acting as a trial court. However, in Bush v Gore, it did sweep down, on cert, and overturn the Florida Supreme Court decision, which in my opinion it did not have jurisdiction to do, in order to stop the votes in Florida from being counted, which basically designated Bush as President, in spite of the popular vote, or, more importantly, the electoral, IF the votes had been counted. Nonetheless, it was SCOTUS, so the buck stopped there, whether the decision was right or wrong. Then, in that case, the SCOTUS said, this case establishes no precedent. Huh? No precedent because it was improper. Still, the Repubs went for it.

The case at hand now is far more difficult. Any legal path is tenuous and unprecedented. Nonetheless, I think every available legal route should be explored, and more than one attempted, while we wait around and hope he can be impeached before he destroys our country, and perhaps the world.

Frankly, sadly, I do think standing is a problem in the pending stay of Trump’s EO. Still, the case stalled it, so some of the immediate damage could be mitigated. That was not the point of the case, but there are times in the law when you go with your best arguments, hope better ones will develop in the meantime, or hope to establish a precedent, Roe v Wade. (However messy the case was that these three women improperly filed, at least they are trying something, throwing darts at best, so im not going to throw too many stones at them. Who knows, in a scolding, maybe SCOTUS will give us some hints.) I thought Obama should have tried a recess appointment of his SCOTUS nominee, even if eventually he lost. He would have probably gotten a year, at least. We are at a time-especially given that the deck is stacked against us, as we do not control any branch of government, and those in power are not fair minded and reasonable people- that we are going to have to push the edges if we are to change the direction we are heading, very fast.

[MoonRiver]

50. For some time I have thought that the problem with our Constitution,

is that we were the first true democracy. Other countries learned from our mistakes, and fine tuned their systems in accordance. The US, however, is stuck where it began.

[Alice11111]

53. I agree, of course

[WillowTree]

54. We are not and never have been a "true democracy".

[maryallen]

57. Beautifully argued.

This is the view that I will take: Remember Bush v. Gore. Many of the same arguments presented above, were used to stop Bush v. Gore, but the Republicans nevertheless, prevailed. We have no legally charted path to achieve the outcome we desire, so we are forced to proceed on an unfamiliar path. At 69, having followed much of America's development during my lifetime, I honestly do not believe this country can survive -- as a democratic nation -- unless we now fight back fiercely with every opportunity that presents itself.

[Alice11111]

58. Thank you.

Obviously, I agree with you that we must fight back on unfamiliar paths with unpredictable outcomes. Fiercely. We must create our own opportunities. Kudos to the Washington AG for jumping out front and taking risks, regardless of the outcome. Washington State? Who would have thought. We must try every conceiveable path. If we can get something halfway viable into SCOTUS before DT's appointee is confirmed, our chances are better.

[JudyM]

65. Thoughtful post.

It is stunning that the unethical conflict-of-interest-laden actions of McConnell et al cannot be challenged. Their actions are in violation of their constitutional oaths, never mind the most basic ethical principles, yet nothing can be done legally or administratively? Our congresscritters were too busy currying favor with large donors, or at best naively asleep at the wheel, IMO, to guard against their widely-cast net of gerrymandering, etc, that's now strangling us and our democracy.

[Alice11111]

67. Of course, I agree. "Checks and Balances" has broken down, and produced things like Gerrymandering.

It is an unanticipated flaw in our Constitution, which has been amazing for well over 200 years. Now, the broken system reinforces itself. We could not count on dececy, people like Ryan and McConnell, to check it. In fact, they do the opposite...exploit it.

Pres Obama and AG Holder are going to take it on eventually...Gerrymandering. I dont know what tbeir plans are, but Hopefully, they can help somewhat.

[JudyM]

68. Yes, only a few things are offering any hope right now...

The waking up of a sizable part of the public - calling congress, protesting and apparently preparing to run for local offices, and the shift in the MSM to calling tRump's issues out more directly, as in, "he's lying." And the long shot that the intelligence community has enough evidence to clear him out of office. We shall see...

[Alice11111]

71. Yes, as to press and people, but IC, even though

they have called him out, and probably will continue, I think they have been and will continue to be blocked or trivialized by Repubs in key positions to bring him down.
Comey. Chaffetz Sessions. Ryan. Turtleman, for starters.
I think we as Dems, the DNC, really need to target these people, in every way possible...the press, elections, demonstrations, media....

[elleng]

63. It's PRO SE,

so 'despicable charlatans' harming THEMSELVES?

[onenote]

64. They solicit donations from people who believe the nonsense that these folks put out.

So yes, they're charlatans.

[LanternWaste]

56. I pretend to know when others are wasting time as well.

I pretend to know when others are wasting time as well. Though our knowledge is faulty, often inaccurate, and more often lacks relevant details, it allows us to feel more clever about ourselves than may otherwise be the case...


Clever little fella...

[ElementaryPenguin]

62. Here's a far WORSE joke...Fat Tony Scalia

Prevented the state of Florida from choosing it's own electors by stepping in and stopping a recount that had Gore winning the Presidency - in the most convoluted, bullshit of an excuse decision ever rendered by that court (or at least pretty near!)!! So this court is not above considering this kind of argument - and these desperate times with possibly even the fate of the world in the balance NO EFFORT top topple this fascist regime is wasted or foolish!! NOTHING could be more foolish than having this psychopath in the White House!!!!!

[Alice11111]

69. Yes, &it was a states rights issue.They overturned FlorSCt

& stopped vote counting. Then, in the decision, they said this case doesnt establish a precedent. (In other words, its a POS & we know it, but we want Bush.)

Cheaters, liars, theives, con artists & hypocrites. I don't believe a word most of them say. We need a Special Prosecutor to investigate Comey. Not a chance.

We are really in civil war mode, but the left doesn't have guns, or automatic weapons. We wouldn't use them if we did. I guarantee you if the reverse would have happened, Trump won popular vote and Hillart got the EC, plus she dismantled civil rights, and Russia and the FBI intervened to put her in place, they would not let it stand. If She put extreme left wingers in her cabinet, plus bill, Chelsea, her son in law, they would have impeached her and be on to conviction. Then, jail. We would have blood in the streets now.

I wish we could divide into 2 countries, or half of us merge with Canada.