Thread by @AkivaMCohen

Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone

Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem

Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas

I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument

Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that

This is a very long-winded way of saying "no, our dumbass equal protection claims DON'T give you any basis to reverse the election, the Defendant States are right"

And saying in a footnote "yes, our case is worthless unless we've sufficiently alleged intentional fraud" is a bold strategy when your complaint doesn't actually allege intentional fraud at all, let alone meet the heightened pleading requirements for that claim

The argument that Texas' real interest here is in having Pence as the President of the Senate to break ties doesn't leave dumbfuckistan no matter how many times you use it, Ken

As someone else noted, Texas has taken "saying the quiet part loud" and made it into an art form.

The argument here is that Texas' claim that other states' election procedures violated the constitution wasn't "ripe" until Texas was harmed by that violation, so Texas had to wait until after the election.

In other words, Texas is EXPRESSLY telling the Supreme Court that "the harm to us wasn't other states 'breaching the contract' by not following the Constitution. We were only harmed when they picked a candidate we don't like"

"Your Honors, they voted for Biden and we want Trump" is NOT a fucking basis for litigation, you neoconfederate treasonweasels

Really leaning hard into "when the Electors clause gives state legislatures control of the Manner of appointment that's exclusive and cannot be varied by the courts, but when the same clause gives Congress control of the time they vote, you can just stay or amend that"

1) I mean, when you're filing a pile of dogshit to play to your base, knowing it's dogshit as you file it, I guess little things like intellectual honesty and internal consistency aren't going to be your primary concern

2) But this is fucking clownish.