10 Comments

I just never get tired of reading you. You make it make sense.

Expand full comment
founding

Thanks. When first reading the opinion I didn't notice the barrier the majority placed in front of post election challenges raised for "insurrection." If it had been a snake it would have bit me, Grandpa used to say.

Expand full comment

One thing that might work for the Democrats would be to support legislation that occasionally helped Working American citizens….

Expand full comment

I understand the Court does not want to be the arbiter of who wins an election as they did in the Al Gore hanging chad case in Florida. I understand the statute under which the Trump campaign was contesting the 2022 election was revised after President Biden was sworn in. Now if the Court refuses to say that one political party or the other cannot do something then, the odds are that one party or the other will try to do just that. So, if the Court refuses to do it's duty, then only Carl Von Clausewitz's statement applies: (slightly adjusted to say) Civil war is the continuation of Democracy but by other means. Just as the Legislative Branch needs to do it's duty, so must the Court do it's duty.

Expand full comment
Mar 19·edited Mar 19

The electoral vote count tactic was very briefly mentioned during the oral argument, in a way that adds credence to your observations.

Expand full comment

Thank you. Your ability to explain the subtext and context of the language of this decision in easily accessible terms is admirable. I would love to hear you deliver a Closing Argument in a Criminal case.

Expand full comment

Fascinating chess board analysis. I’m sure the Democrats have lots of other games up their sleeves.

Expand full comment

The Dems are still going to invalidate Trump’s electoral votes next January, no matter what the court said. After all, who’s going to stop them?

Expand full comment

Simply Devine title for your wonderful presentation.

Expand full comment