Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz were students in my Legislation class at Yale and Harvard. They irresponsibly magnified the president's baseless claims of voter fraud. And neither had a constitutional or statutory argument that had not been rejected by judges and administrators.
https://twitter.com/JillDLawrence/status/1349350536487854081
Sens. Hawley and Cruz’s arguments that the rules followed in the Pennsylvania election were legally invalid disrespected the legal process established by the Constitution and statutes and interpreted responsibly by judges.
Rep. Fred Keller claimed that the PA Secretary of State and Supreme Court “usurped” the role of the legislature when they interpreted the state’s law to allow 3 days for mail-in ballots to arrive.
In Boockvar, the PA Supreme Court applied legislatively enacted canons of statutory interpretation and found "legislative intent" to allow flexibility in emergencies (e.g., a pandemic). As my students know, statutory interpretation following established rules is not “usurpation.”
Neither Sens. Hawley and Cruz nor the House objectors revealed any literacy in the state constitution or its statutory interpretation code. Instead, they have set a bad precedent for Congress. usatoday.com/story/opinion/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
