B/C of DS's CF, we've always had very natural discussions on "adult" topics.That, plus he'd overhear me discussing cases w/ my judge that were not exactly kid-friendly so he's pretty "worldly." So tonight, he wanted to play AmongUs while doing his 3 breathing treatments & vest 1/
2/ This is what it looks like in general so you get a feel for it...He does 3 breathing treatments while shaking for about 45 minutes. Anyway, I "team" w/ DS during his vest in AmongUs and get a chance to see how chats go down. Tonight some players were asking/sharing
3/3 personal information & DS after saying to me how nuts those people were because of all the wack-a-doodles out there, typed in chat "Stranger Danger" and I almost died.
I'm calling myself a "moderate" on election issues b/c I'm neither blinding saying "concede, it is ridiculous argument" or accepting every claim of fraud & violations of election law. What is sorely lacking is clear explanation of charge, impact, response, counter response. 1/
2/ If you listen to my chat with @CrossPolitic (which as I said to DH I think was my best interview EVER and that's had lot to do w/ great team they have), you'll see what I mean by setting up, explaining, etc.
3/ (You'll also "see" what I mean re ending shelter-in-place w/ Crystal Gayle's hair--both length and color--ha). But I want this same depth of discussion ON ALL ELECTION ISSUES. And it's lacking. And that's dangerous to our country.
Ohio filed a motion for leave to file amicus taking issue with remedy Texas proposes, asserting jurisdiction is mandatory, and requesting S.Ct. address issue Texas raises re electors' clause. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…
Lawsplained: Ohio filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to let it file a brief as a "friend of the court," and said it's position argued would be: that the REMEDY Texas wants is not called for but that the S.Ct. needs to answer the question of what the Electors Clause 1/
2/ of the constitution means in the case of state bureaucrats or courts modifying rules set by the state legislature. Ohio also argues the Supreme Court MUST hear a case between two different states (mandatory jurisdiction), while current S.Ct. precedent is it is discretionary
If you want to form your own opinion on the merits of Texas' case, here's what I recommend you do: 1) Read this: thefederalist.com/2020/11/12/pen… 2) Then read Bush v. Gore (including Rehnquist concurrence) and McPherson v. Blacker.
3) then read thefederalist.com/2020/12/09/6-t… to get the basics. 4) And finally read actual filings by Texas.
An intelligent, logical non-lawyer can follow it all (with the lawsplaining in the articles) and form own opinion.
But the law is one thing and the prudential judgments of the justices another, so here's my prediction:
DH & I are drooling over our dream house, Georgian Colonial and are imaging our personal touches to make it "perfect." Our styles are 90% same and while we both love dormers, he insists dormers won't look right because a hip roof...so I keep sending pictures to prove my point.1/
2/ So today's Mom/DS movie tradition of watching Home Alone offered quite the plus!
3/ ...which explains why DH sent me this picture and comment:
2/ I had previous analyzed the PA constitutional problems in depth and this analysis translates perfectly (albeit without the standing and remedy issue addressed). Also, if you haven't read, thefederalist.com/2020/11/12/pen…
3/ that piece, it was an exclusive with long-term PA election chair and it adds substantially to the texture of the PA violation alleged in Texas case.