[Yahoo] Republican U.S. judges choose Constitution over Trump as election fraud cases keep failing

from Yahoo News

[원문링크] news.yahoo.com/republican-us-judges-choose-the-constitution-over-trump-as-electionfraud-cases-keep-failing-211255403.html

Republican U.S. judges choose Constitution over Trump as election fraud cases keep failing

[참고] 이 글의 원문은 '야후 뉴스' 이며, 단지 개인적인 영어공부를 위한 해석이므로, 해석에 잘못된 부분이 있을 수 있습니다.

--------------------------------------

 

Republican U.S. judges choose Constitution over Trump as election fraud cases keep failing

공화당 판사들이 트럼프 보다는 헌법을 선택하면서 선거조작관련 건들이 계속 기각되고 있다.

 

Crystal Hill

·Reporter

Fri, December 4, 2020, 6:12 AM GMT+9

 

If President Trump and his campaign’s legal team thought conservative-leaning federal judges would be especially sympathetic to their allegations of election fraud, the record is showing they were mistaken.

 

트럼프 대통령과 그의 선거운동 법무팀이 보수성향의 연방 판사들이 그들(트럼프와 법무팀)이 주장하고 있는 선거조작 혐의에 특히 긍정적으로 보아줄 것이라고 생각했다면 실수했다는 것이 기록으로 보여진다.  allegation : 의혹, 혐의

 

Judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike have struck down the campaign’s allegations of voter fraud in every case on which they have ruled, according to a Yahoo News review of post-election federal complaints, active and closed, that were brought directly by the Trump campaign or by attorneys who are independently seeking to invalidate the results of the election in battleground states.

 

진행중이거나 이미 진행이 끝난 대선후 연방정부에 올라온 고발건들에 대한 야후 뉴스의 검토결과, 공화당과 민주당 대통령들에 의해 지명되어진 판사들은 모두 그들이 결정내린 건들 모두에 대한 대선 투표자 조작혐의를 기각시켰다 라고 되어있는데, 이런 고발건들은 트럼프 대선진영이나 또는 격전지가 되었던 주들의 선거를 무효화 시키고자 독립적으로 활동하는 지방검사들이 직접 제출한 것이다.  attorney : 지방검사

 

The review found that none of the nine federal judges who were appointed by Republican presidents or identified as Republicans before their confirmation (including a three-person appellate panel) assigned to seven of the 13 total cases, as of Dec. 3, ruled in favor of the campaign’s election fraud allegations. Lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin and Arizona.

 

조사에 따르면, 총 13건 중 7건에 할당된, 공화당 대통령에 의해 임명되거나 스스로 확인해주기 이전에(3인 상고위원회도 포함해서) 공화당쪽으로 밝혀진 연방판사 9명 중 그 어느 누구도 12월 3일 현재 대선의 선거 조작혐의에 손을 들어주지 않았다.    펜실베니아, 미시간, 조지아, 네바다, 윈스콘신, 아리조나 주에서 (이런 선거조작) 소송이 제기되었다.  appellate  상소의, 상고의  rule  지배하다, 판결을 내리다  rule in favor of A : A 에 우호적으로 판결하다

 

Although federal judges are not expected to openly support a partisan agenda, Trump has often boasted about the number of conservative judges he has appointed and implied he expected them to rule in his favor.

 

연방 판사들이 정당의 정책을 공개적으로 지지할거라 생각되지는 않는다 하더라도, 트럼프는 그가 임명한 보수성향 판사들의 숫자에 대해 종종 자랑했고, 그들이 자기 편에서 판결내려 줄 것이라는 속내를 비쳐왔다. partisan [pάːrtizən] 당파적인, 정당에 따른 (party : 정당) boast [boust] 자랑하다, 뻐기듯이 말하다

 

On substantive legal questions many of them have, but the electoral process, which goes to the heart of American democracy, is a different story. The campaign’s inability to gain traction with conservative judges is telling.

 

그들 중 많은 이들이 가진 실질적인 법적 문제들에 대해서, 선거과정 만은 - 이 부분은 미국식 민주주의의 핵심을 건드리는 부분이다 - 다른 이야기이다.  트럼프 대선팀이 보수성향 판사들에게서 힘을 얻지 못하고 있다는 것이다. substantive [sΛbstəntiv] 독립적인, 실질적인, 상당한 electoral  선거의 traction  견인, 수축, 마찰 gain traction 견인력을 얻다, 일이 수월하게 잘 진행되다.

 

“Despite the narrative that Republicans have been marching in lockstep with President Trump and willing to say anything to further his agenda, there have been federal judges who were appointed by Trump, as well as state and local Republican officials, who, when faced with their duty and the reality in front of them, have done the right thing,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago and legal analyst, told Yahoo News.

 

예전에 시카고에서 연방 검사를 지냈던 레나토 모리오띠는 야후 뉴스팀에 이렇게 말했다 - "공화당쪽 사람들이 트럼프와 보조를 맞춰왔고 또 그 어떤 얘기도 한다고 하지만, 트럼프나 주정부 또는 지역의 공화당 관리들에 의해 임명되어졌어도 막상 그들의 의무와 현실에 맞닥뜨렸을때는 옳은 일을 선택하는 연방 판사들이 있어왔다." lockstep  딱딱 맞춘 보조, 발걸음, 엄밀한 진행방식

 

In Pennsylvania, the responses have been particularly scathing. A recent opinion authored by Stephanos Bibas, a Trump-appointed judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and an apparent member of the Federalist Society, a conservative judicial organization, sharply criticized the campaign’s bid to prevent Pennsylvania officials from certifying the election results, which has since occurred in the state.

 

이런 현상은 펜실베니아주에서 특히 뚜렸했다.  트럼프가 임명한 제3 순회 항소법원 판사이자 보수성향 사법조직인 '연방주의 모임'의 일원인 스테파노스 바이바스는 자신의 의견에서 펜실베니아주 관리들이 선거결과를 확인하지 못하게 하려는 시도를 날카롭게 비난했다. scathing [skéiðiŋ]  통렬한, 봐주지않는 bid  입찰, 출마, 노력, 시도 certify  증명하다, 보증하다

 

Bibas, in his opinion rendered Nov. 27, seemed to pinpoint the central flaw of the Trump campaign’s overall crusade, noting that its attorneys are making multiple conclusory allegations, such as the accusation that county boards conspired to exclude Republican poll watchers from the ballot-counting process, but aren’t presenting sufficient facts to back up those claims.

 

11월 27일 밝힌 의견에서 바이바스는 전반적인 트럼프의 대선과정의 주요한 실수를 정확히 꼬집어 말하려는 듯이 다음과 같이 말했다 - 펜실베니아 지방검사들이 몇가지 결정적인 의혹을 만들고 있다는 것인데, 예를 들면 지역 의회들이 공모해서 표확인 과정에서 공화당 선거 감시원들을 배제했다는 것인데, 그러한 주장을 뒷받침 할만한 충분한 사실을 제공하고 있지 않다는 것이다. render  :  1) = make -를 만들다, -하게 하다  2) = give pinpoint  :  …의 위치를 정확히 나타내다; [원인·본질을] 정확히 지적[설명]하다. crusade  :  십자군, 성전 - 여기서는 치열한 대선과정을 표현 conclusory  :  결정적인 accusation  :  비난, 고발, 고소, 기소 conspire  :  공모하다, 음모를 꾸미다

 

He also pointed out that Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, said during an oral argument that the campaign isn’t alleging fraud.

“Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas said. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”

Bibas’s opinion was cosigned by two other circuit judges: Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, and Judge Michael A. Chagares, who was also nominated by Bush, in 2006.

“I think that that decision punctuates what Chief Justice [John] Roberts (of the U.S. Supreme Court) said about there not being Bush judges or Obama judges or Trump judges,” Mariotti told Yahoo News. “The fact that you have scathing opinions from judges like Judge Bibas says more about the strength of the legal cases being brought by the Trump campaign and their allies than it does about those judges, because it’s not hard to see on the face of these filings that they’re deficient.”

 

Federal judges at all levels have lifetime tenure and can be removed only by impeachment, an extremely rare step generally reserved for instances of outright corruption or malfeasance. The Framers made that rule precisely to insulate the federal judiciary from partisan political pressures.

The circuit ruling was on an appeal of a lawsuit first filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 9, court records show.

In that court, Judge Matthew Brann, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2012 but is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society, according to his Senate questionnaire, on Nov. 21 dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning that the campaign can’t file that complaint again on the same basis.

Brann took the campaign to task for what he described as “strained legal arguments without merit” and called one of its claims “Frankenstein’s Monster” — an argument that has been “haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent,” per the opinion.

After Brann’s decision, the Trump campaign released a statement that oddly seemed to welcome the dismissal.

“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court,” the campaign said. “Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock. We will be seeking an expedited appeal to the Third Circuit.”

Then, after Bibas’s opinion, campaign attorney Jenna Ellis issued a statement on Twitter from her and Giuliani claiming that the “activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud.” Ellis has not responded to emailed questions from Yahoo News.

 

In Georgia, where attorneys including Trump supporter Lin Wood filed a suit on Nov. 25 alleging a voting-machine conspiracy linked to Venezuela, U.S. Northern District Judge Timothy C. Batten denied a request from attorneys to prohibit the defendants — Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — from destroying or altering data on any Dominion voting machine in Cobb, Gwinnett and Cherokee counties, according to a transcript from a Nov. 29 hearing shared by Democracy Docket.

Batten was nominated by Bush and confirmed in 2006.

Attorney Sidney Powell, a vehement Trump supporter from whom the campaign has publicly distanced itself, filed a notice on Dec. 1 indicating that she plans to appeal Batten’s decision to the 11th Circuit, court documents show.

Batten and his aforementioned four colleagues are all conservative and/or Republican-appointed federal judges who’ve denied requests from the campaign and its allies to block certification or invalidate election results based on flimsy allegations of fraud. The other four judges, of nine total, presided over cases that were resolved by agreement or were voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

The Trump campaign, which has brought most of its roughly three dozen cases at the county or state level, has indicated it wants to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority. A tally by Yahoo News of federal cases includes a petition to the Supreme Court to review a state case brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., that sought to block officials from certifying the state’s election results. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated an order from a lower court that had prohibited state officials from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results.

 

 

In a statement issued in support of the petition, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the state’s high court a “partisan Democrat Supreme Court” that has issued “decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases.” Of the court’s seven judges, two are Republicans.

Legal experts say it’s unlikely that the nation’s highest court will accept the case.

“The [plaintiff] wants an order from the U.S. Supreme Court nullifying the effect of the certification of the electors,” Richard Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Irvine, wrote in his election law blog. “It is not clear that this kind of remedy is even available. But I do not expect this case to go anywhere at the Supreme Court.”

Mariotti said he can’t imagine that the court would accept the case.

“It’s important to note that [federal] judges are not elected by anyone,” he said. “And the idea that a judge who’s not elected is going to set aside an election, in which millions of people participated, [is] an extraordinary act that would require an extraordinary justification.”