Posts: 15,177
Threads: 267
Joined: May 2020
Reputation:
32
Trump won a big case in wisky today that will allow them to throw out tens of thousands of illegal ballots, which should give him the state. Now we just need 2 more states to do the 4ight thing.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds Biden's win, rejects Trump lawsuit
MADISON - The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Democrat Joe Biden's Wisconsin win Monday, handing President Donald Trump a defeat ...
3 hours ago
WMTV - NBC15
Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses Trump election lawsuit
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump's lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the ...
4 hours ago
Madison.com
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects Donald Trump's election challenge
The Wisconsin Supreme Court promptly denied President Donald Trump's request for it to override the popular will of the voters and overturn ...
4 hours ago
Urban Milwaukee
Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Case
4-3 vote rejects Trump's move to throw out 220000 Milwaukee and Dane county ballots.
3 hours ago
FOX 6 Milwaukee
Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses Trump election lawsuit
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss.
4 hours ago
Posts: 5,429
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation:
18
Trump did lose the Wisconsin case, but the majority decision basically just said it was too late to challenge, which is insane to me.
Posts: 29,226
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
So am I reading this right, Pitch you are celebrating a technicality being spun as a loss on merit? Â
Some one get me up to speed, the court rejected this because it was too late? Â Why was it filed too late???
In a 4-3 ruling written by conservative-backed Justice Brian Hagedorn and joined by the court's three liberal-backed members, the court said the Trump campaign's objections to four broad categories of absentee ballots was misplaced; that instead of seeking to cancel people's votes after they were cast, the campaign should have challenged the rules voters and clerks relied on before the election. Most of those rules have been in place for several previous elections and apply statewide.
"The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case ... come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began," Hagedorn said, drawing a sports analogy. "Striking these votes now — after the election, and in only two of Wisconsin's 72 counties when the disputed practices were followed by hundreds of thousands of absentee voters statewide — would be an extraordinary step for this court to take. We will not do so."
12 last-minute ideas for the people you need a gift for in a hurry
In their dissents, the three other conservative-backed members on the court made clear they considered at least some of the challenged election procedures unlawful and wouldn't have ruled out tossing many of the ballots.
Biden won the state by more than 20,600 votes, but the Trump campaign challenged more than 220,000 ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties.
The court's opinion relies for the most part on a legal doctrine mandating that aggrieved parties in a lawsuit should not unreasonably delay in seeking relief from a court. The opinion states that legal doctrine is especially applicable in election cases, where the rules were longstanding and the campaign had years to challenge them.
Hagedorn said the campaign's delay in not seeking relief until after the election was "unreasonable in the extreme," a decision that could harm election officials, other candidates, voters in the affected counties and voters statewide. For Hagedorn, who was elected in 2019 with the help of Republicans, his joining with the court's three liberal-backed justices further cements him as a crucial swing vote on the court and threatens to alienate him from his conservative base of support.
"Unreasonable delay in the election context poses a particular danger——not just to municipalities, candidates, and voters, but to the entire administration of justice," Hagedorn said. "The issues raised in this case, had they been pressed earlier, could have been resolved long before the election. Failure to do so affects everyone, causing needless litigation and undermining confidence in the election results. It also puts courts in a difficult spot."
Posts: 29,226
Threads: 690
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
48
There should definitely be a remedy for that. Â Of course SCOTUS will eff that up too. Â If it even gets to them
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/ckKf5lA78k5iChxfVz/giphy.gif)
