Case thrown out ... not the worst outcome - 11/22/20
It seems like every election thread ends up with a liberal referring to the fact that Trump’s case in PA was “thrown out”. While the media loves to concentrate on this angle, things could be much worse.
The PA case was in front of a district judge. That is two levels of appeal from the US Supreme Court. Neither side will live with the decision of a trail court judge, so any time spent in district court is a waste of time that Trump’s team does not have. The worst outcome would have been that the judge held an evidentiary hearing/trial, which based on the types of evidence outlined by Trump’s team would have taken weeks, then ruled against him. Deciding the case quickly was as much as Trump could hope for from an Obama appointee.
Aside from timing, accepting evidence would have changed the standard of review on appeal. The way the case was dismissed gives the appellate court the ability to hear the appeal de novo. That means it conducts a wholly independent review of the case and is free to decide as it sees fit.
Had the judge heard evidence and made a factual determination, the standard of review would have been “clearly erroneous”. Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001). If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, the court of appeals may not reverse, even if it would have weighed the evidence differently. Cases reviewed under that standard are rarely overturned.
A loss isn’t always a loss. Trump 2020!
The PA case was in front of a district judge. That is two levels of appeal from the US Supreme Court. Neither side will live with the decision of a trail court judge, so any time spent in district court is a waste of time that Trump’s team does not have. The worst outcome would have been that the judge held an evidentiary hearing/trial, which based on the types of evidence outlined by Trump’s team would have taken weeks, then ruled against him. Deciding the case quickly was as much as Trump could hope for from an Obama appointee.
Aside from timing, accepting evidence would have changed the standard of review on appeal. The way the case was dismissed gives the appellate court the ability to hear the appeal de novo. That means it conducts a wholly independent review of the case and is free to decide as it sees fit.
Had the judge heard evidence and made a factual determination, the standard of review would have been “clearly erroneous”. Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001). If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, the court of appeals may not reverse, even if it would have weighed the evidence differently. Cases reviewed under that standard are rarely overturned.
A loss isn’t always a loss. Trump 2020!