Second #ISLTAmici Theme: The anti-ISLT camp is big and diverse, the pro-ISLT camp... isn’t
There have been nearly 70 amicus briefs filed in the case—roughly two-thirds of them oppose the ISLT.
Joining the folks I noted above is a massive group of historians, law professors, U.S. senators, state AGs, secretaries of state, current and former federal and state executive officials, civil rights organizations, good government groups, and think tanks, among others.
The number of filings on the other side is much smaller, representing state attorneys general, several think tanks and litigation shops, and partisan political organizations.
This is more than a numbers game, though. (Having a lot of filings doesn’t guarantee a win.) The *range* of interests represented on each side is much different in scope, too. The pro-ISLT side represents a very narrow range—the anti-ISLT side is much broader.
And there are some dubious figures in that small pro-ISLT camp—among them, noted election denialist and presidential coup plotter John Eastman, whose brief, among other things, asks the Court to overrule several critical cases.
His brief: brennancenter.org/sites/default/…
His brief: brennancenter.org/sites/default/…
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson’s brief spells out the problems with the pro-ISLT roster more powerfully and in a greater detail than I could. Their brief: brennancenter.org/sites/default/… 
Thread continues here with the third theme...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
