The way it works is each state will certify its own election results, which determine the electors it appoints to the electoral college. Those electors send their votes to Congress. Congress meets in joint session to open the electors’ votes and determines the overall winner.
NYT appears to have (graciously) deleted the tweet, preserved here for legibility purposes.
Do we think they’re still working on the wording of a correction or they’re just going to play it off like it never happened?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The votes have been CAST—in many cases postmarked and given to the federal government—but they still need to be COUNTED. Every vote needs to be counted.
It’s probably most helpful if I post some of the filings. So, first, I’d point people to Judge Sullivan’s order earlier today for USPS to conduct sweeps in certain districts by 3:00 p.m. EST.
Second, take a look at the postal service’s response. There’s a lot of verbiage but the ultimate message is they’re not going to meet the 3:00 p.m. deadline Judge Sullivan set (and, cheekily, they say they don’t think it really is a deadline).
The notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit hit the district court docket before Judge Hanen’s written order, which is a road map for the Fifth Circuit to reverse him without remand if it’s so inclined. Pages 1-4:
Pages 5-9:
Having reread it, the real invitation outlined by the judge here is for the Supreme Court—to change the law of standing to aid GOP candidates in throwing out votes on the night before an election. (But the appeal the plaintiffs filed is to the 5th Cir and time is way too short.)
I’d like to talk to the person who thought “around town” would save that lede.
It’s pretty insane that this was published! In the New York Times!
(There’s no evidence provided that arsonists “aligned with antifa” traveled “from the cities” to a small Nebraska town to set a non-loudmouth’s farm equipment on fire.)
In one of today’s cases, Taylor v. Riojas, the Court takes the babiest of baby steps away from qualified immunity—reversing the 5th Cir bc, the per curiam opinion says, it didn’t distinguish the heinous facts from another slightly less heinous QI case. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
As Justice Alito notes in a concurrence, this isn’t the way the Supreme Court usually operates. Its rules say that if a party merely got jobbed by a circuit court that misapplied a properly-stated legal standard, the Court generally won’t take up the appeal.
The court’s decision to intervene in this way, to me, suggests that there is significant discomfort with QI among some members of the court—albeit not enough to actually start overruling old decisions. There’s no indication where the new Justice Barrett stands on the issue.