The Georgia lawsuit failure

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump rejected what he called a “creative” lawsuit on Thursday.

[...]

“To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and disenfranchisement that I find have no basis in fact and law,” U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg declared at the end of a roughly two-and-a-half hour hearing.

Georgia’s assistant attorney general Russell Willard called the lawsuit an effort to roll back the clock on voting rights in the state.

“The election is over, and rather than accept that his candidate has lost, plaintiff seeks the largest disenfranchisement in Georgia since the abolition of the poll tax and the vestiges of Jim Crow,” Willard thundered.

[...]

“Plaintiff attempts to change the rules at the end of the game in order to alter the score,” Willard said.

[...]

“There is no doubt that the right to vote, even an individual’s right to vote is sacrosanct,” Judge Grimberg added, adding that this “doesn’t mean that individual voters have the right to dictate” the manner in which that vote is counted.

On the surface of his lawsuit, [Trump attorney and plaintiff in the case, L. Lin Wood, Jr.,] claims that Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger harmed him as a voter by agreeing to a March settlement agreement on signature matching in ballots. The lawyer waited eight months and three election cycles to challenge it on Nov. 13, when it became clear that President-elect Joe Biden had won.

“His undue delay prejudiced the Secretary of State and certainly prejudiced the millions of voters in this election,” Grimberg ruled.

[...]

“The fact that the candidate or candidates that this plaintiff voted for… did not prevail in an election does not meet the legal standard of harm, much less irreparable harm,” Grimberg found.

[...]

“To reiterate, Wood seeks an extraordinary remedy: to prevent Georgia’s certification of the votes cast in the General Election, after millions of people had lawfully cast their ballots. To interfere with the result of an election that has already concluded would be unprecedented and harm the public in countless ways.”

  Law and Crime

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.