Trump appointee rejects Trump in Wisconsin

[Proud liberal 80]

https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/20314498782.pdf

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Electors Clause claims fail as a matter of law and fact. The record establishes that Wisconsin’s selection of its 2020 Presidential Electors was conducted in the very manner established by the Wisconsin Legislature, “y general ballot at the general election.” Wis. Stat. §8.25(1). Plaintiff’s complaints about defendants’ administration of the election go to the implementation of the Wisconsin Legislature’s chosen manner of appointing Presidential Electors, not to the manner itself. Moreover, even if “Manner” were stretched to include plaintiff’s implementation objections, plaintiff has not shown a significant departure from the Wisconsin Legislature’s chosen election scheme.
This is an extraordinary case. 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. This Court has allowed 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.” (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. And The Walls...

...come tumbling, tumblin'. And I don't even like The Stones, but it seemed apt.

[sdfernando]

3. Well if don't like rolling with the Stones,

there is always The Call:

[ProfessorGAC]

4. That's More Like Me!

This is a cool tune!
I know some of their stuff, but never heard this one.

[sdfernando]

5. I heard it a lot back in the 80s

I always liked their stuff.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

2. This part is worth repeating everywhere...

This Court has allowed 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.” (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been.

LOSER (again)