Another Court Loss for Team Trump

Approaching 60 losses in court.

Via the NYT: Federal Judge in Wisconsin Deals Trump Another Court Defeat

In a strongly worded decision, Judge Brett H. Ludwig, a Trump appointee who took his post only three months ago, shot down one of the president’s last remaining attempts to alter the results of a statewide race. The decision came just one day after the Supreme Court denied an audacious move by the state of Texas to contest the election outcomes in Wisconsin and three other battleground states.

[…]

Judge Ludwig’s ruling was especially significant because after the Supreme Court’s terse decision Friday night, Mr. Trump complained that courts around the country have thrown out dozens of his lawsuits based on technicalities, and have not given him a chance to fully present his legal arguments.

Judge Ludwig, however, held a daylong hearing on Thursday and still found that Mr. Trump’s claims were lacking. He dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Mr. Trump cannot refile it in the same court.

“This court has allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case,” Judge Ludwig wrote, “and he has lost on the merits.”

The case was about procedural matters and did not allege fraud.

it accused a group of state and local election officials of violating state law by expanding the manner in which absentee ballots were received and processed this year in an unusual election that took place during a pandemic.

Ludwig ruled that these accomodations conformed to state law.

In his ruling, Judge Ludwig wrote that Wisconsin’s election officials had followed state law, which clearly says that the state’s electors should be chosen by a popular vote. Even though they instituted changes like allowing drop boxes for absentee ballots and loosening restrictions for certifying ballots, the moves were not illegal, Judge Ludwig wrote, and officials used acceptable ways to implement the law.

Judge Ludwig also noted that the Trump campaign was aware of these changes months before they were put in place and should have sought to challenge them before the election, not after Mr. Trump lost.

“This is an extraordinary case,” Judge Ludwig wrote. “A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for re-election has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed election administration issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.”

The ruling concluded: “In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”

To which I can I only add: boom.

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Kathy says:

    Wasn’t the matter of “because I really, really want it!” decided in part by the case of Call vs Dibs?

    ReplyReply
    11
  2. dazedandconfused says:

    The ruling concluded: “In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”

    Mic drop…

    ReplyReply
    9
  3. al Ameda says:

    Good news from Wisconsin.
    Well, Republicans have about 37 more days to keep this going on. And they will.
    Next up, Republicans will no doubt take aim at the Electoral College proceedings on Monday.

    If Republicans win the Senate, I think we can look forward to extended Senate hearings concerning Hunter Biden. Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo) is on the record as saying that Hunter Biden’s problems might lead to Joe Biden and possible impeachment.

    NY Post – GOP lawmaker calls for special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden
    By Ebony Bowden December 7, 2020 | 7:10pm | Updated

    WASHINGTON — A Republican congressman has urged Attorney General William Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings and a damaging laptop hard drive that belonged to the president-elect’s son.

    “This investigation is critical to defending the integrity of our republic and ensuring a potential Biden administration will not be the subject of undue foreign interference,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Col.) wrote to Barr, as first reported by Fox News.

    “Americans have the right to know whether Mr. Biden’s reported ties to foreign governments will make him the subject of blackmail attempts or other nefarious efforts to undermine U.S. national security or otherwise improperly influence American foreign policy,” he added.

    Yes I know, Buck is the kind of guy that many used to write off as a whack job, kind of like Gohmert and Gaetz. Well, he is a whack job but now the Republican Party is Buck and those guys.

    Good Luck with that ‘reach across the aisle’ approach, Joe.

    ReplyReply
    5
  4. @al Ameda:

    Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo) is on the record as saying that Hunter Biden’s problems might lead to Joe Biden and possible impeachment.

    Any impeachment attempt will have to wait until at least 2023, and only then if the Rs can win the House.

    ReplyReply
    5
  5. Sleeping Dog says:

    @al Ameda:

    Remember with Javanka and Bevis and Butthead, House Dems have a much better fishing opportunity than Hunter is.

    ReplyReply
    5
  6. mattbernius says:

    I know that a number of more conservative-leaning folks read this blog and–somewhat understandably–opt not to comment. I just wish, if they actually think the President has a case here, they would share why they think that.

    I’m also thinking back to the guy who posted a while ago about how there needed to be an investigation and recounts to know, whether or not, after multiple recounts and the absolute refusal of the President’s legal team to submit any actual evidence in their filed briefs (as opposed to unsworn statements), he can accept that Biden won the election.

    ReplyReply
  7. @mattbernius: I suspect those folks have further retreated into their media bubbles, which just reinforces their fantastical approach to all of this.

    This is troubling.

    ReplyReply
    2
  8. mattbernius says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I suspect those folks have further retreated into their media bubbles, which just reinforces their fantastical approach to all of this.

    Possibly.

    We also know that at least some seem to venture outside to apparently hate-read and occasionally hate-comment here (some despite being disinvited numerous times to the party). The silence from those folks over these last few weeks has been somewhat notable.

    Either way, I agree 100% that this is deeply troubling.

    ReplyReply
    2
  9. grumpy realist says:

    @mattbernius: ex-friend of mine has gone completely down the Trump rabbit hole.

    ….if he spent half as much time working as he does looking for “evidence” that confirms his they-stole-the-election-for-Trump fantasies he’d be a millionaire. Oh well.

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*