Read on Twitter
A judge tossed the Arizona "Kraken" suit.
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."
Judge Humetewa says the lawsuit seeking to overturn Arizona's presidential election result is "sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence."
In other equally surprising news, they sky is up.
The ruling is a lot like the others dismissing Sidney Powell's lawsuits alleging a vast election-fraud conspiracy. It's brutal and categorical.
First, the plaintiffs don't have standing.
First, the plaintiffs don't have standing.
The judge says courts can't remedy a claim that people's votes were diluted by destroying the votes of 3.4 million others.
Even if the plaintiffs had standing, which they don't, they still couldn't bring this noise to federal court because of abstention. "The Court cannot think of a more troubling affront to federal-state relations than this."
Even if the plaintiffs had standing, which they don't, and the suit wasn't barred by abstention, which it is, the state still has 11th Amendment immunity from prospective injunctive relief.
