The Trump administration's California and Alaska suits are losers. But it’ll be hard to remedy the distrust in election results they seem intended to sow.
The DOJ isn't some mythical, non-human creature. Lawyers are bringing these cases trying to overthrow democracy, and it's up to the field of law, law schools, state bar organizations, to stop it, not normal people. We didn't have anything to do with this.
"I’ll go further: this suit is frivolous, and it ought to be sanctionable. Even if the “risk of voter confusion” were a basis on which the federal government could bring lawsuits (AND IT ISN’T), Alaska’s ballot is … not confusing."
For the non-lawyers, like me... what would sanctions look like?
A) The Alaska suit implicitly insults the intelligence of Alaskans, as it assumes the voters there cannot discern what "incumbent" means.
B) The larger question is whether, after all of these frivolous, waste-of-time lawsuits, the DOJ can ever regain the presumptions its lawyers enjoyed before Trump-Bondi-Blanche. After cases like this -- along with the many instances of DOJ lawyers playing "cute" with judicial orders -- it would be understandable for the federal judiciary to start with an initial presumption of bad faith when the DOJ attorneys come into their courtrooms.
In the spirit of sanctions being deserved, is such a thing up to congress to enact? That said, is there a timeline for imposing sanctions, say by another congress yet to be seated?
Wouldn't it be fun drafting the Los Angeles County Attorney's response to this threatening letter from an assistant United States Attorney ? Or any California county attorney's response. Pick your favorite. I would try to limit it to two pages. It's not worth more.
But the lawsuit brought by the Justice Department "on Behalf of the United States" against the Alaska Elections Board, or whatever it is called, but really brought on behalf of a certain candidate for the office of United States Senator from Alaska really offers the better opportunities for insult, the object of the suit in federal court being to prevent him in advance from losing, by obtaining an order blocking the results of the election should that be the case.
I question that standing of "The United States" to sue on behalf of a candidate for any public office.
I question the standing of the United States Department of Justice to do so, since effectively that is what it is doing, and acting as if either it was its own client, of if this Senate candidate was.
I question whether this case "raises a claim for which relief may be granted". And jurisdiction on that ground
Further to that point I would aver that the "matter is not ripe for adjudication", in as much as the candidate in question has not lost the election yet, by any margin, wide or narrow, as the Justice Department woukd have a federal judge decide is worthy of interdiction in advance. By just how many votes should the judge give this candidate a handicap in advance ??
Obviously the purpose of this lawsuit is two fold. To appease President Trump. And to signal that his Justice Department is going to contest the results of this election if as expected, his favored candidate loses.
There is an odor about this case. And it is not a good one. It is the odor of Todd Blanche's eventual departure from office and demise. But at least his epitath will read: "He did just what Trump wanted".
The DOJ isn't some mythical, non-human creature. Lawyers are bringing these cases trying to overthrow democracy, and it's up to the field of law, law schools, state bar organizations, to stop it, not normal people. We didn't have anything to do with this.
"I’ll go further: this suit is frivolous, and it ought to be sanctionable. Even if the “risk of voter confusion” were a basis on which the federal government could bring lawsuits (AND IT ISN’T), Alaska’s ballot is … not confusing."
For the non-lawyers, like me... what would sanctions look like?
A) The Alaska suit implicitly insults the intelligence of Alaskans, as it assumes the voters there cannot discern what "incumbent" means.
B) The larger question is whether, after all of these frivolous, waste-of-time lawsuits, the DOJ can ever regain the presumptions its lawyers enjoyed before Trump-Bondi-Blanche. After cases like this -- along with the many instances of DOJ lawyers playing "cute" with judicial orders -- it would be understandable for the federal judiciary to start with an initial presumption of bad faith when the DOJ attorneys come into their courtrooms.
In the spirit of sanctions being deserved, is such a thing up to congress to enact? That said, is there a timeline for imposing sanctions, say by another congress yet to be seated?
Thank you, Professor. You really have a gift for explaining very dense things.
Wouldn't it be fun drafting the Los Angeles County Attorney's response to this threatening letter from an assistant United States Attorney ? Or any California county attorney's response. Pick your favorite. I would try to limit it to two pages. It's not worth more.
But the lawsuit brought by the Justice Department "on Behalf of the United States" against the Alaska Elections Board, or whatever it is called, but really brought on behalf of a certain candidate for the office of United States Senator from Alaska really offers the better opportunities for insult, the object of the suit in federal court being to prevent him in advance from losing, by obtaining an order blocking the results of the election should that be the case.
I question that standing of "The United States" to sue on behalf of a candidate for any public office.
I question the standing of the United States Department of Justice to do so, since effectively that is what it is doing, and acting as if either it was its own client, of if this Senate candidate was.
I question whether this case "raises a claim for which relief may be granted". And jurisdiction on that ground
Further to that point I would aver that the "matter is not ripe for adjudication", in as much as the candidate in question has not lost the election yet, by any margin, wide or narrow, as the Justice Department woukd have a federal judge decide is worthy of interdiction in advance. By just how many votes should the judge give this candidate a handicap in advance ??
Obviously the purpose of this lawsuit is two fold. To appease President Trump. And to signal that his Justice Department is going to contest the results of this election if as expected, his favored candidate loses.
There is an odor about this case. And it is not a good one. It is the odor of Todd Blanche's eventual departure from office and demise. But at least his epitath will read: "He did just what Trump wanted".
Why are you using the term 'imposter' to refer to the unaffiliated Sullivan? Maybe I missed that that is how DOJ references him in their lawsuit.