Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Trump’s expectation of loyalty has been clear throughout his presidency, even when it comes to apolitical jobs like judicial postings. But what he has gotten during his election challenges has been anything but that. Repeatedly, judges with ties to Trump have joined all the others in undermining his case.
Other Trump appointees haven’t been so silent, though. Chief among them is Brett H. Ludwig, whom Trump nominated to a U.S. District Court in Wisconsin in 2017. Earlier this month, he called the Trump campaign’s request to have the GOP-appointed Wisconsin legislature pick new presidential electors “bizarre.” And he followed that up Saturday by ruling against the “extraordinary” lawsuit.
“A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred,” he wrote.
Ludwig added: “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”
Ludwig’s stern rebuke echoed a Trump federal appeals court nominee, Stephanos Bibas, who ruled against the Trump campaign in late November in Pennsylvania.
“Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ges-he-hand-picked/ar-BB1bUSsI?ocid=Peregrine
Other Trump appointees haven’t been so silent, though. Chief among them is Brett H. Ludwig, whom Trump nominated to a U.S. District Court in Wisconsin in 2017. Earlier this month, he called the Trump campaign’s request to have the GOP-appointed Wisconsin legislature pick new presidential electors “bizarre.” And he followed that up Saturday by ruling against the “extraordinary” lawsuit.
“A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred,” he wrote.
Ludwig added: “This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed.’ It has been.”
Ludwig’s stern rebuke echoed a Trump federal appeals court nominee, Stephanos Bibas, who ruled against the Trump campaign in late November in Pennsylvania.
“Charges of unfairness are serious,” Bibas wrote on behalf of a three-judge panel. “But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ges-he-hand-picked/ar-BB1bUSsI?ocid=Peregrine