The Chevron standards requires that Court’s defer to agency interpretations of law when rule making/issuing regulations. The argument would be that the legislator did pass election laws articulating how elections should be managed and electors selected; that those laws explicitly granted authority to issue associated and necessary regulations and procedures to the executive through election management agencies. The mail in changes made by the governors and election agencies would, they’d argue, flow from the law that the state Congress passed, thus be in compliance with Article II regarding state legislators. Our argument, using that same standard, would be that they overstepped their delegated authority and that the laws they are claiming authority under in no way contemplated these outcomes in an intelligible way; therefore, mail-in and signature related changes would be outside the scope of their authority to amend and be void. Toss out all the mail in votes.
This makes a lot of sense. I had to fight the doom at first, but he plugged and promoted this interview... he didn’t do that to show weakness unless it was purposeful and strategic. If he wants the courts to hear him, then he needs to fight the “dictator” narrative and be a sympathetic figure. The courts, specifically SCOTUS, clearly do not want to seem like they’re making a partisan decision. Maria is a pede. I think this was coordinated and, like the posts suggests, part of the “art of war.”
Don’t forget COURAGEOUSLY!