I understand why people are anxious. But Biden will be president on January 20th.
Any worst-case scenario falls short.
The conservative Justices are not insane, nor are they bad at math.
They already have a 6-3 arch-conservative majority locked it. Why burn it down now?
1/
2/ Let’s start with one worst-case scenario: Non-certification.
Even if Trump blocks the certification of ALL five close states, Biden still have a lead of 233-232 among appointed electors, and wins the electoral college under the 12th Amendment:
3/ Let me add that this isn't going to happen. Michigan has a Democrat as Sec of State (see below) and is going to certify its electors. So will the other states...
But let's play this out anyway...
4/ You still have to believe that some combination of 3 or 4 elected state legislatures will override a clear majority of their voters...
after saying there's no way they would...
provoking massive non-violent shutdowns of each state, and probably worse.
5/ And you'd still need five Justices on the Supreme Court to go along with this interpretation of Article II and "manner" as allowing post-election day coups by legislatures, with no role for gov veto, to reverse the election rules set in advance...
6/ If you say "Bush v. Gore" and Kavanaugh, there's nothing in Bush v Gore or in Rehnquist's concurrence or in Kavanaugh's or Gorsuch's recent opinions coming even close to permitting such a *post-election* legislative override.
7/ SCOTUS will not overturn these state counts.
Zero chance (0.000000%) there are 5 votes on the Supreme Court to make Trump president by judicial fiat. There isn't even one vote.
But let's play it out and imagine - utterly implausibly - it still gets thrown to the House.
8/ Yes, I've written about 12th A's rule: “In choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.”
Yes, GOP would have a majority of state delegations... if the Dems let them all get seated... time.com/5889013/absent…
9/ If somehow all of those state Republicans and Senate Republicans have shredded democracy by what I call "constitutional beanball," not just hardball...
Attempting a coup deep into January... papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
10/ Pelosi and the House Democrats have at least one beautiful hardball pitch to make in January:
Refusing to seat Republican House members-elect until after Biden is inaugurated.
I call it the chutzpah rule... columbialawreview.org/content/hardba…
11/ Chutzpah Rule: If a state refuses to certify electors b/c it claims its presidential vote is not clear, it has no claim to rely on its vote for House delegation. The House Majority can delay seating some of their members...
12/ By using democratic hardball jiujitsu, Pelosi & House Dems can flip the bad-faith Republican arguments about vote counts against their own GOP House Members-Elect.
The House Dems can make sure there are 26 state delegations to elect Joe Biden President around Jan 6th.
13/PS:
Some say Powell v McCormack forces House to seat such Members-Elect. 1. Chutzpah: Seating Members still depends on election results. These members dispute their own election!
2. Oath of “faithful discharge” & “uphold constitution” bars bad faith abuse of office.
14/PS there is precedent for the political flexibility of which delegations get seated in Congress based on their conduct and legitimacy.
See Reconstruction and the adoption of the Reconstruction Amendments...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“@LindseyGrahamSC also asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger (Republican Secretary of State) said.”
Lordy, if there are tapes...
3/ @washingtonpost:
Raffspenger said he was stunned Graham seemed to suggest he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Absent court orders, Raffensperger doesn’t have the power to do what Graham suggested.
“It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” he said.
Threading on the ACA California v. Texas SCOTUS case.
The Justices asked Cal's Michael Mongan (defending the ACA) mostly about standing. Little on severability -- which is the threat to the whole ACA. Odd.
We won't get a sense of the Court until the challengers face questions.
Breyer was asking his first question, focusing on severability, and Roberts just cut him off and called on Alito (who has less seniority). This is very weird. Probably a technical glitch, but not a good look.
Breyer was actually asking a tough question for the ACA on non-severability:
"ACA supporters told us that the individual mandate was necessary for the entire ACA balance of costs. Isn't that a relevant fact for interpreting the statute?"
I hope he gives Verrilli a chance.
I'm seeing that Fox News just called Arizona for Biden.
Big, if right.
Biden now has a clear path to 270 without waiting for Pennsylvania.
This is the map with Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan, but not Pennsylvania or ME2 or NE2:
Biden 279 (a win)
Trump 249
(leaving PA undecided).
I am getting a ton of questions about why Michigan and Wisconsin look red right now.
Those counts right now are part of the infamous "red mirage" we've been talking about since August, because we knew they wouldn't count any Dem-dominated mail/absentee votes.
The 8th Cir ruled 2-1 last night that Minnesota must set aside any ballots postmarked on time but arriving after election day.
One of the 2 is viciously anti-gay Trump appointee Leonard Grasz, whose ABA panel unanimously declared "not qualified." americanbar.org/advocacy/gover…
The majority claims to rely on "state legislatures" as the Constitution's rule, but invents a reason to ignore MN legislation delegating power to MN Sec of State to adopt "alternatives" in case of an order like the state court order here.
Here's the majority, then the dissent:
Here's the dissent.
Folks, this decision is a joke. This 2-1 majority purports to defer to state legislatures, but ignores state legislation and the state legislature, as well as a state court.
This "federalism" is really just federal judges' partisan judicial activism.
In case you missed it, Gorsuch:
* Celebrated legislative supremacy as a Founding principle
* Praised legislators over judges for their fact-finding, judgment, & consensus
* Criticized judges who "sweep in" to address problems
Gorsuch is going to love the next Congress.
Who am I kidding. Gorsuch just likes this Republican legislature restricting voting access.
Phony originalism. Just reading a single clause how he likes. Not a single historical source.
Kagan hits Kavanaugh hard in this footnote, after Kavanaugh puts the Trump Party Line on mailed ballots into a Supreme Court opinion. You can't make this stuff up.