Out of the nearly three-dozen failed lawsuits the Trump campaign has filed challenging the 2020 election results, judges have fired back at the campaign's effort in notable scathing ways, and the New York Times has compiled some of their snarky rulings.
Pennsylvania:
"Perhaps Plaintiffs are right that guards should be placed near drop boxes, signature-analysis experts should examine every mail-in ballot, poll watchers should be able to man any poll regardless of location, and other security improvements should be made," said Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on October 10. "But the job of an unelected federal judge isn't to suggest election improvements, especially when those improvements contradict the reasoned judgment of democratically elected officials."
Texas:
"At virtually any point, but certainly by October 12, 2020, plaintiffs could have filed this action," said Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on November 2. "Instead, they waited until October 28, 2020 at 9:08 p.m. to file their complaint and did not file their actual motion for temporary relief until midday on October 30, 2020 — the last day of early voting."
Georgia:
"To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and disenfranchisement that I find have no basis in fact and law," said Judge Steven D. Grimberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on November 19.
Read more at The New York Times.
Shares