I didn’t realize that they actually came up with one on Wednesday. And the judge brushed it off, huh? What a kangaroo court.
Simonds should petition the State Board of Elections for a do-over of Wednesday’s hearing, preferably with different judges.
And I’m dubious about this notion that the hearing can’t be appealed. In the thread about who was really the acting deputy director of the CFPB, Ravenman made the point that
Here you have Sec.24.2-802, where parts A through G of that section describe in detail the procedure that the court will adhere to as it supervises and certifies the recount. Then part H says, “The recount proceeding shall be final and not subject to appeal.”
If we interpret part H to mean that the court can make up its own procedures, willy-nilly, and the results aren’t subject to appeal, then Parts A through G are meaningless. As Captain Jack Sparrow might say, they’re really just guidelines. But then the legislature didn’t mean what it said.
So is there a way to interpret Part H so that Parts A through G mean what they say, but Part H does too? Well sure, if it’s interpreted to mean that when the court follows the procedures laid out in Parts A through G, then the result can’t be appealed. But if the court departs from the procedures in Parts A through G, then those departures and their fruit can be appealed.
IANAL, of course, so I’d be interested in the SDMB legal eagles’ take on that logic. Needless to say, if I’ve made a hash of Ravenman’s logic, the fault is mine, not his.