I hear vivafrei's synopsis (haven't read it entirely, sounds like a good one), and it appears they pretty much collated all the state-by-state fuckery and testimony and bundled it up under constitutional grounds with state standing for inter-state disputes. I've seen a couple of lib lawyers trying to attack it (typically on the grounds of unprecedented, no standing, this would open the flood gates to SCOTUS intervention since every state would bring suit every election, etc.). Do you have any take on the opposition arguments?
SCOTUS may well use such arguments to avoid disturbing the (fraudulent and unconstitutional) results. If we know anything, it’s that “conservative” SCOTUS Justices are often pussies, always shirking responsibility (meanwhile, liberal Justices make up shit from while cloth, like muh right to abortion).
I read their standing arguments. They rely on a number of arguments, mostly predictable. They brilliantly point out that the Senate represents the states and the VP, who is elected by electors, has a tie breaking vote in the Senate, which means the state has an interest here. IMHO, standing shouldn’t be a problem. Again, who knows what SCOTUS will do?
My secondary concern is a weak victory; succeed on the merits but dulled by surprisingly consenting Roberts or the like who neuters the remedy. Who knows; there is the self-interest argument that the co-equality of the branches are at stake, so if SCOTUS lets this roll then they are irrelevant in a couple of years. White knuckle ride.
I hear vivafrei's synopsis (haven't read it entirely, sounds like a good one), and it appears they pretty much collated all the state-by-state fuckery and testimony and bundled it up under constitutional grounds with state standing for inter-state disputes. I've seen a couple of lib lawyers trying to attack it (typically on the grounds of unprecedented, no standing, this would open the flood gates to SCOTUS intervention since every state would bring suit every election, etc.). Do you have any take on the opposition arguments?
SCOTUS may well use such arguments to avoid disturbing the (fraudulent and unconstitutional) results. If we know anything, it’s that “conservative” SCOTUS Justices are often pussies, always shirking responsibility (meanwhile, liberal Justices make up shit from while cloth, like muh right to abortion).
I read their standing arguments. They rely on a number of arguments, mostly predictable. They brilliantly point out that the Senate represents the states and the VP, who is elected by electors, has a tie breaking vote in the Senate, which means the state has an interest here. IMHO, standing shouldn’t be a problem. Again, who knows what SCOTUS will do?
My secondary concern is a weak victory; succeed on the merits but dulled by surprisingly consenting Roberts or the like who neuters the remedy. Who knows; there is the self-interest argument that the co-equality of the branches are at stake, so if SCOTUS lets this roll then they are irrelevant in a couple of years. White knuckle ride.
I could totally see a “never again,” prospective only decision. Blargh.