Read time: 1 minute

DC Judge Smacks Down Absurd WI Election Lawsuit And Floats 'Potential Discipline' For Trump Lawyers

A federal judge on Monday declined to issue an injunction that Republicans hoped would stop Congress from officially accepting the results of the 2020 election.
DC Judge Smacks Down Absurd WI Election Lawsuit And Floats 'Potential Discipline' For Trump Lawyers
Image from: Screen Shot

A federal judge on Monday declined to issue an injunction that Republicans hoped would stop Congress from officially accepting the results of the 2020 election.

In his ruling, D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg outlined the goals of the lawsuit, which was filed by the Wisconsin Voters Alliance and several Republican lawmakers.

Plaintiffs' aims in this election challenge are bold indeed: they ask this Court to declare unconstitutional several decades-old federal statutes governing the appointment of electors and the counting of electoral votes for President of the United States; to invalidate multiple state statutes regulating the certification of Presidential votes; to ignore certain Supreme Court decisions; and, the coup de grace, to enjoin the U.S. Congress from counting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and declaring Joseph R. Biden the next President.

Boasberg said that his court would deny the motion.

"In addition to being filed on behalf of Plaintiffs without standing and (at least as to the state Defendants) in the wrong court and with no effort to even serve their adversaries, the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution," he wrote. "It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States."

The judge also hinted at "potential discipline of Plaintiffs' counsel."

"Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures," Boasberg pointed out. "As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs' counsel."

Read the entire ruling below.


WISCONSIN VOTERS ALLIANCE v... by RawStory

Can you help us out?

For 16 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit. We work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for our labor of love, but with rising hosting and associated costs, we need your help! Could you donate $21 for 2021? Please consider a one-time or recurring donation of whatever amount you can spare, or consider subscribing for an ad-free experience. It will be greatly appreciated and help us continue our mission of exposing the real FAKE NEWS!

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team