Thread by @AngryBlackLady

I read the Pro Publica piece on Moore and I just find it distressing that people who write about the law look around and see what is going on with this Court and still somehow believe in the Court as an institution that can fix the cracking open of democracy.

This writer cites a law prof who has written that Moore won't mean that state legislatures can overturn the will of the people in a federal election because Congress mandates that electors be selected before Election Day.

Does this person really think the GOP won't change that if given the chance?

I'm reading this guy's law review article and it's all about precedent and how the Court said this and Congress has mandated that.

But the point is, authoritarianism doesn't adhere to these rules!

These rules can and will change! There are people who tried to overthrow the government STILL IN CONGRESS. Some got reelected!

How can you with a straight face talk about precedent and congressional action in the face of 'we should suspend the constitution & redo the election.'

It's baffling.

This piece: propublica.org/article/moore-…

It very much poo-poos real concerns about what the Court might do in Moore v. Harper and I think that's irresponsible.

THERE'S A DUDE ON THE COURT LEAKING OPINIONS.

You think he's not open to a reinterpretation of the Elections Clause?

Our thread on #MooreVHarper

https://twitter.com/RewireNewsGroup/status/1600143046464753669?s=20&t=rw5iZp6qFbrIMHcYOswHAw