As Election Day nears, courts have been inundated with election law challenges. When Election Day passes, that won’t stop them. The challenges will continue. Our American obsession with litigation is no longer limited to adjudication of slip and fall cases and contract disputes and dog bites and has now become the method by which we will likely choose our next leader.
This will result in the Federal Courts writing pages and pages of legalisms justifying what they really intended to do from the outset – let their preferred candidate win. Doubt that? Then, explain why Republicans and Democrats are so anxious to nominate Judges who agree with them, or read just a few pages of Bush v. Gore,or, three other words – Amy Coney Barrett. Now, not all Judges will rule the way their sponsors want them to, but, sadly very many will and do.
So, let’s cut through the bullshit again. Here’s a short and common-sense model opinion that any Federal Judge can adapt to their own liking simply by choosing which optional finding they prefer.
[TRUMP v. BIDEN]
[COURT]
[DOCKET NUMBER]
This Court is presented with an issue of election law. This is a: (1) VITAL QUESTION THAT GOES TO THE VERY HEART OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS; (2) AN ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION; or (3) AN UNIMPORTANT AND BASELESS WASTE OF TIME. The [DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN] candidate for the office of President of the United States alleges that the [DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN] opposition has illegally interfered with the election by: (1) INTIMIDATING VOTERS/STUFFING BALLOT BOXES; (2)INTERFERING WITH MAIL-IN BALLOTS; or (3) WINNING. The Court has: (1) HELD EXTENSIVE FACT-FINDING; (2) REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; or (3) IGNORED EVERYTHING AND PREPRINTED THIS DECISION. As a result, the Court is satisfied that the [DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN] challenge: (1) WILL BE SUSTAINED; (2) WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED; or (3) WAS DECIDED THE MINUTE IT WAS FILED.
It is well established under a long line of decisions by the United States Supreme Court that the Constitution protects the right of all qualified voters to vote in both state and federal elections Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Applying that principle to this case, it is clear that this federal court should: APPLY THE RULE OF BAKER V. CARR,369 U.S. 186 (1961) AND ASSERT ITS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THIS; (2) APPLY THE RULE OF SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) AND LET THE STATES DECIDE IT FOR THEMSELVES; or (3) APPLY THE RULE OF “I CAN’T BE FIRED” AND DO WHATEVER THE FUCK IT FEELS LIKE.
The Court could engage in a voluminous exposition of the rationale for its determination. However, (1) THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE MOMENT PREVENTS THAT; (2) THE SIMPLICITY OF THE ISSUES DOES NOT REQUIRE IT; or (3) NOBODY WILL READ IT ANYWAY].
Therefore, it is hereby Ordered that the votes of the [DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE/REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE] shall be: (1) HELD VALID; (2) HELD INVALID; (3) COUNT FOR DOUBLE.
P.S. To [DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE/REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE]: I am available for a Cabinet position. Enclosed at Appendix “A” is my resume.
We were right 
Please, please, please, let it be a landslide in Biden’s favor so we don’t have to experience anything like what happened with Bush V Gore!
Did you see that Amy Coney Barrett did her swearing in ceremony at the White House, which no other Supreme Court Justice has ever done? It should be conducted at the supreme Court. Showing poor judgement for a second time. The first was to bring her children to a Super Spreader event where there were no masks and no social distancing. I see dark clouds ahead for our country with this Supreme Court.
LikeLike