Blistering ruling from Trump-appointed judge dismisses president's Wisconsin case 'with prejudice'

At this point is it news that Donald Trump has lost yet another case in court? Eh, probably not. But somehow the taste of Donald Trump, big loser, just never gets old. And in this case, that losing sauce is extra spicy—because the epic smackdown came from a Trump-appointed conservative judge.

District Court Judge Brett Ludwig dismissed Trump's case in Wisconsin "with prejudice," meaning that it is pretty much dead, dead, and also dead. But Judge Ludwig didn't stop there. His ruling makes it clear that he's … "aghast" seems like the proper term. In addition to calling this "an extraordinary case" (emphasis his), where Trump hopes "to secure federal court help in undoing his defeat," Ludwig makes it extremely clear that such help is not coming.

From the ruling:

"This is an extraordinary case. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump is the current president of the United States, having narrowly won the state of Wisconsin's electoral votes four years ago, with a margin of just over 22,700 votes. In this lawsuit he seeks to set aside the results of the November 3, 2020 popular vote in Wisconsin, an election in which the recently certified results show he was defeated by a similarly narrow margin of just over 20,600 votes. Hoping to secure federal court help in undoing his defeat, plaintiff asserts that the defendants, a group of some 20 Wisconsin officials, violated his rights under the "Electors Clause" in Article II, Section I of the Constitution."

Trump's claim is that the state elections commission made rules about … state elections, which is the exact reason that the state legislature created the commission and authorized it to make such rules. However, Trump asserts that because the commission did issue such rules, it means the whole election "failed," and the state's electors should be left up to the GOP-dominated state legislature.

In response, Ludwig showed that a single use of the word "extraordinary" was insufficient to measure the level of gall that Trump was asserting.

"This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in sitting 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 to make his case and he has lost on the merits.
In his reply, plaintiff asks that 'the rule of law be followed.' It has been."

It's not your standing, loser. It's your case.